 | |
 | |
| Abbreviation | GCF |
|---|---|
| Formation | 2010; 15 years ago (2010) |
| Legal status | Active |
| Headquarters | Songdo International Business District,Yeonsu-gu,Incheon, South Korea |
| Website | GreenClimate.fund |
TheGreen Climate Fund (GCF) is afund forclimate finance that was established within the framework of theUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Considered the world's largest fund of its kind, GCF's objective is to assistdeveloping countries withclimate change adaptation andmitigation activities.[1] The GCF is an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC. It is based inSongdo,Incheon, South Korea. It is governed by a Board of 24 members and supported by a Secretariat.
Mafalda Duarte, a Portuguese development economist, is the Fund's Executive Director.[2]
The Green Climate Fund supports projects and other activities in developing countries usingthematic funding windows.[3] It is intended that the Green Climate Fund be the centrepiece of efforts to raiseclimate finance under the UNFCCC. There are four other, smallermultilateral climate funds for paying out money in climate finance which are coordinated by the UNFCCC. These include theAdaptation Fund (AF), the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF). The GCF is the largest of these five funds.[4][5]
As of Dec 2023, the GCF had a portfolio of 13.5 billion USD (51.9 billion USD including co-financing).[6]
The process of designing the GCF has raised several issues. These include ongoing questions on how funds will be raised,[7] the role of the private sector,[8] the level of "country ownership" of resources,[9] and the transparency of the Board itself.[10] Also, this additional international climate institution might further fragment taxpayer's money that is put towardsclimate action.[11]
The Fund's former director Héla Cheikhrouhou has complained in 2016 that the Fund is backing too many "business-as-usual types of investment proposals". This view is echoed by a number of civil society organizations.[12]
In 2023, the Executive Director announced a series of reforms aimed at making the Fund more efficient and positioned to deliver greater impact.[13]
Wealthier,industrialized countries have been thecountries responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions.[14][15] As a consequence, it has been argued that these countries are morally responsible to pay for a lion's share of the cost ofclimate mitigation worldwide, including costs of the transition ofless developed andleast developed countries.[16][17] A number of civil society groups determined that the United States and the European Union are morally responsible for at least 54% of the cost of mitigating climate change-driven disaster damage in theGlobal South.[18] Others have argued that wealthier countries should help finance the transition of less developed and least developed countries because the former can more realistically afford the substantial investment now urgently needed for the transition.[19]
TheCopenhagen Accord, established during the2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP-15) in Copenhagen mentioned the "Copenhagen Green Climate Fund". The fund was formally established during the2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Cancun as a fund within the UNFCCC framework.[20] Its governing instrument was adopted at the2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP 17) inDurban, South Africa.[21][22]
During COP-16 in Cancun, the matter of governing the GCF was entrusted to the newly founded Green Climate Fund Board, and theWorld Bank was chosen as the temporary trustee.[20] To develop a design for the functioning of the GCF, the "Transitional Committee for the Green Climate Fund" was established in Cancun too. The committee met four times throughout the year 2011, and submitted a report to the 17th COP in Durban, South Africa. Based on this report, the COP decided that the "GCF would become an operating entity of the financial mechanism" of the UNFCCC,[23] and that on COP-18 in 2012, the necessary rules should be adopted to ensure that the GCF "is accountable to and functions under the guidance of the COP".[23] Researchers at theOverseas Development Institute state that without this last minute agreement on a governing instrument for the GCF, the "African COP" would have been considered a failure.[24] Since then developing countries (like South Africa) have embarked on integrated planning and infrastructure prioritization to avoid lock in to unstainable development pathways and work towards ajust transition[25] to "greener" economy.[26]
Furthermore, the GCF Board was tasked with developing rules and procedures for the disbursement of funds, ensuring that these should be consistent with the national objectives of the countries where projects and programmes will be taking place. The GCF Board was also charged with establishing an independent secretariat and the permanent trustee of the GCF.[23]
The fund partners with 84 organizations that includecommercial anddevelopment banks, state agencies andcivil society groups, which pilot and execute innovative approaches to climate programs.[27]
There are other multilateral climate funds (i.e. governed by multiple national governments) which are important for paying out money inclimate finance. As of 2022, there are five multilateral climate funds coordinated by theUNFCCC. These are the Green Climate Fund (GCF), theAdaptation Fund (AF), the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) and theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF). The GCF is the largest of these five funds.[4][5]
Countries agreed to mobilise $100 billion a year by 2020 in climate finance, some of which has been mobilised through the GCF. Uncertainty over where this money would come from led to the creation of aHigh Level Advisory Group on Climate Financing (AGF) by UN Secretary-GeneralBan Ki-moon in February 2010. There is no formal connection between AGF and GCF, although its report is one source for debates on "resource mobilisation" for the GCF, an item that will be discussed at the GCF October 2013 Board meeting.[28] Disputes also remain as to whether the funding target will be based on public sources, or whether "leveraged" private finance will be counted towards the total.[29]
As of February 2020, a total of US$10.3 billion was pledged and US$8.24 billion confirmed, as part of the Initial Resource Mobilization (IRM) period.[30] As of Dec 2023, the GCF had a portfolio of 13.5 billion USD (51.9 billion USD including co-financing).[6]
The lack of pledged funds and potential reliance on the private sector is controversial and has been criticized by developing countries.[31]
U.S. President Obama committed the US to contributing US$3 billion to the fund. In January 2017, in his final three days in office, Obama initiated the transfer of a second $500m installment to the fund, leaving $2 billion owing. Former U.S. PresidentDonald Trump in hisannouncement of U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on 1 June 2017, also criticized the Green Climate Fund, calling it a scheme to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries.[32]
| Country | Announced ($Millions) | Signed ($Millions) | Signed per capita | GDP per capita | Emissions per capita (tonnes ofCO2e) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 USA | $3,000 | $3,000 | $9.41 | $55,000 | 17 |
 Japan | $1,500 | $1,500 | $11.80 | $36,000 | 9 |
 UK | $1,211 | $1,211 | $18.77 | $46,000 | 7 |
 France | $1,035 | $1,035 | $15.64 | $43,000 | 5 |
 Germany | $1,003 | $1,003 | $12.40 | $48,000 | 9 |
 Sweden | $581 | $581 | $59.31 | $59,000 | 6 |
 Canada | $277 | $277 | $7.79 | $50,000 | 14 |
 Italy | $334 | $268 | $4.54 | $35,000 | 7 |
 Norway | $258 | $258 | $50.20 | $97,000 | 9 |
 Australia | $187 | $187 | $7.92 | $62,000 | 17 |
 Spain | $161 | $161 | $3.46 | $30,000 | 6 |
 Netherlands | $134 | $134 | $7.94 | $52,000 | 10 |
 Switzerland | $100 | $100 | $12.21 | $85,000 | 5 |
 South Korea | $100 | $100 | $1.99 | $28,000 | 12 |
 Denmark | $71.8 | $71.8 | $12.73 | $61,000 | 7 |
 Belgium | $66.9 | $66.9 | $6.18 | $48,000 | 9 |
 Finland | $107 | $46.4 | $8.49 | $50,000 | 10 |
 Austria | $34.8 | $34.8 | $4.09 | $51,000 | 8 |
 Luxembourg | $46.8 | $33.4 | $58.63 | $111,000 | 21 |
 Mexico | $10.0 | $10.0 | $0.08 | $10,000 | 4 |
 Czech Republic | $5.32 | $5.32 | $0.57 | $20,000 | 10 |
 Hungary | $4.30 | $4.30 | $0.43 | $14,000 | 5 |
 New Zealand | $2.56 | $2.56 | $0.57 | $42,000 | 7 |
 Estonia | $1.30 | $1.30 | $0.99 | $20,000 | 14 |
 Monaco | $1.08 | $1.08 | $28.89 | $163,000 | – |
 Panama | $1.00 | $1.00 | $0.25 | $12,000 | 3 |
 Iceland | $1.00 | $0.50 | $1.55 | $52,000 | 6 |
 Latvia | $0.47 | $0.47 | $0.24 | $16,000 | 4 |
 Chile | $0.30 | $0.30 | $0.02 | $15,000 | 5 |
 Colombia | $6.00 | $0.30 | < $0.01 | $8,000 | 2 |
 Indonesia | $0.25 | $0.25 | < $0.01 | $4,000 | 2 |
 Malta | $0.20 | $0.20 | $0.47 | $23,000 | 6 |
 Poland | $0.11 | $0.11 | < $0.01 | $14,000 | 8 |
 Lithuania | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.04 | $16,000 | 5 |
 Bulgaria | $0.10 | $0.10 | $0.02 | $8,000 | 7 |
 Romania | $0.10 | $0.10 | < $0.01 | $10,000 | 4 |
 Liechtenstein | < $0.1 | < $0.1 | $1.48 | $135,000 | 1 |
 Cyprus | $0.50 | – | 0 | $27,000 | 7 |
 Ireland | $2.70 | – | 0 | $53,000 | 8 |
 Vietnam | $0.10 | – | 0 | $2,000 | 2 |
 Portugal | $2.68 | – | 0 | $22,000 | 5 |
 Peru | $6.00 | – | 0 | $7,000 | 2 |
 Mongolia | < $0.1 | – | 0 | $4,000 | 7 |
| Country | Number of projects (as of July 2023)[34] | Total GCF Financing ($ million, as of July 2023)[34] |
|---|---|---|
| Ghana | 7 | 103.7 |
| Afghanistan | 1 | 17.2 |
| Albania | 4 | 29.1 |
| Antigua and Barbuda | 2 | 39.4 |
| Argentina | 4 | 208.7 |
| Armenia | 5 | 117.1 |
| Azerbaijan | 4 | - |
| Bahamas | 4 | 31.2 |
| Bahrain | 1 | 2.3 |
| Bangladesh | 7 | 374.0 |
| Barbados | 3 | 87.0 |
| Belize | 2 | 12.0 |
| Benin | 8 | 66.6 |
| Bhutan | 2 | 51.9 |
| Bolivia | 1 | 33.3 |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | 1 | 17.3 |
The process of designing the GCF has raised several issues. These include ongoing questions on how funds will be raised,[7] the role of the private sector,[8] the level of "country ownership" of resources,[9] and the transparency of the Board itself.[10] In addition, questions have been raised about the need for yet another new international climate institution which may further fragment public dollars that are put toward mitigation and adaptation annually.[11]
The Fund's initial investments have met with mixed responses. But in at least one case it also drew praise for involving local communities in the formulation of an adaptation project, and for incorporating consumer protection into a plan for off-grid solar energy.[35]
One of the most controversial aspects of the GCF concerns the creation of the Fund's Private Sector Facility (PSF). Many of the developed countries represented on the GCF board advocate a PSF that appeals to capital markets, in particular the pension funds and other institutional investors that control trillions of dollars that pass through Wall Street and other financial centers. They hope that the Fund will ultimately use a broad range of financial instruments.[36]
However, several developing countries and non-governmental organizations have suggested that the PSF should focus on "pro-poor climate finance" that addresses the difficulties faced by micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises in developing countries. This emphasis on encouraging the domestic private sector is also written into the GCF's Governing Instrument, its founding document.[37]
The Cancun agreements clearly specify that the funds provided to the developing countries as climate finance, including through the GCF, should be "new" and "additional" to existing development aid.[20] The condition of funds having to be new means that pledges should come on top of those made in previous years. As far as additionality is concerned, there is no strict definition of this term, which has already led to serious problems in evaluating the additionality of emission reductions throughCDM projects, leading to counter-productivity, and evenfraud.[38][39] While climate finance usually only counts pledges from developed countries, the US$10.3 billion pledged to the GCF also includes some (relatively small) contributions from developing countries.[30]
At its board meeting in South Korea held in March 2015, the GCF refused an explicit ban on fossil fuel projects, effectively allowing for the funding of coal plants. Japan, China, and Saudi Arabia opposed the ban.[40][41]
The Fund's former director Héla Cheikhrouhou has complained that the Fund is backing too many "business-as-usual types of investment proposals", a view echoed by a number of civil society organizations.[12]
The Fund is also pledged to offer "balanced" support to adaptation and mitigation, although there is some concern amongst developing countries that inadequate adaptation financing will be offered, in particular if the fund is reliant on "leveraging" private sector finance.[42] While GCF governing instrument stresses on the need for equal funding towards adaptation and mitigation, there is no universal measure of adaptation, which makes access to GCF funding extremely cumbersome.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link){{cite news}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
