Green Climate Fund

First, my work brought me to the Board Meeting of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in Songdo, South Korea. The GCF is the largest climate fund set up under the mandate of the UN climate convention (UNFCCC). At this board meeting, the Board approved a new batch of projects with a total value of 2 billion US dollars. After a year and a half away from these meetings, it was good to see with my own eyes how things have evolved: who now sits around the table, and which ideas dominate the conversation. Much has changed, yet the most fundamental problems remain.

Over the last decade, there has been growing recognition that local organisations struggle to access GCF funding. This is especially true for smaller national and local organisations, and for groups that are structurally excluded, such as women and Indigenous Peoples. Both ENDS has advocated for change on this for over 15 years. There are some hopeful signs. The GCF has endorsed the Locally Led Adaptation principles, which say that communities should be centered in climate funding, and there seems to be more interest in turning these into a concrete framework for locally led climate action, though what is on the table now is, in my eyes, not enough. GCF’s Gender Action Plan offers some practical openings to push for better access, especially for women's funds. Yet, we still have to conclude that progress remains slow and difficult: hardly any women's or socio-environmental funds accredited to receive GCF funds directly, and their participation in GCF project remains scarce. And that for a fund who prides itself from having Gender at the heart of the Fund.

At the same time, I sensed an increasingly worrying trend. Large new contributions from donor countries are failing to come in (some pledges have stalled) and the GCF’s next fundraising round (its replenishment) is fast approaching. In this context, the Fund's attention is shifting more and more towards so-called blended private finance: arrangements that use public money to attract private investors who expect financial return. Climate action as a financial product, in other words: something that above all has to be profitable, at least for those willing to invest in it. That may not be inherently bad; for some projects and programmes it can be useful. But it is fair to ask whether the GCF’s scarce public funding is really needed for very large programmes, or whether investors could fund these on their own. I am not a private or blended finance expert, but I would like to draw attention to two points:

First, the Fund's mission is to help the people hit hardest by climate change adapt to a new reality, and, where possible, to reduce impact. The political climate has changed, but that should not stop us from demanding that wealthy countries in the Global North pay their fair share of climate finance, in the form of grants.

Second, many communities do not fit neatly into a shiny financial mechanism, and they are being left out, including women-led communities, Indigenous Peoples and other structurally excluded groups. The GCF’s system was not designed for them, yet they are blamed for not fitting into it. Meanwhile, there are plenty of networks of local funds and community organisations (we can call them ecosystems of funding) ready to be funded. They are built on years of trust and accuntability, move funding flexibly and decision-making power genuinely sits with the communities themselves. Through our work with partners, we see every day that this works.

GAGGA: getting climate finance directly to women-led groups

Through the Global Alliance for Green and Gender Action (GAGGA), we do precisely what the GCF and other climate funds promise but do not organise: getting funds directly to women-led and community-based organisations. GAGGA is an alliance of women's funds and environmental and gender organisations, hosted by FCAM in alliance with Mama Cash and Both ENDS. Since 2016, more than 50 million euros has reached local groups this way, and the results show the model works.

It is not only about funding a large number of local communities. GAGGA also helps these organisations grow stronger, build networks and learn from one another, while influencing the wider decisions that determine how hard communities are hit by climate change. It is exactly that ecosystem of wider support which allows locally led climate action to survive, spread, and change the systems that determine who bears the brunt of the climate crisis.

Many of the local organisations are far too small for large funders like the GCF to work with directly: their procedures and paperwork are simply not built for grants of this size. That gap is structural; it is not a matter of missing good intentions. And here lies precisely the task of international organisations like ours: to create the conditions under which resources do arrive at the right level, instead of continuing to control them ourselves, and to show large funds like the GCF how that can work.

What PAPeS in Senegal shows: funding that starts with communities in mind works

The second journey took me to Senegal, to visit the PAPeS programme on agroecology, farming that works with nature rather than against it. Both ENDS works with IED Afrique, a pioneering action-oriented NGO. There I saw what funding looks like when it is the exact opposite of what I witnessed in the GCF boardroom: small, flexible, and easy to access.

Through the PAPeS Small Grants Fund, money goes directly to grassroots groups that are making the switch to agroecological farming. I visited communities where women's groups grow fruits and vegetables and produce neem oil as natural pesticide, where young people are restoring forests, and where farmers are setting up compost systems and solar-powered irrigation. Small amounts, very little bureaucracy, and trust instead of constant checks.

What stayed with me most was how everything starts from what works for the communities, and how obstacles are tackled from the bottom-up, and how little money it takes to make this possible. These groups are not waiting for the GCF; they are already doing the work, with a fraction of what an average GCF project costs. They are not asking for a mega-project. They are asking for funding sized to them, with conditions that work for them.

IED Afrique created a mechanism of supporting communities I hardly encountered anywhere in the large funding architecture: a local organisation that speaks the language of both the communities and the funders, and that has built enough trust to pass money on without everything getting stuck in layers of checks and controls. This is exactly the kind of partner that large funds like the GCF need if they want their money to reach the ground.

Two lessons for the GCF and other climate funders

With the GCF's next fundraising round approaching and the debate on climate finance heating up at COP31, and beyond, two lessons stand out:

First: local leadership means a shift in power. Asking a community to consult, or having it carry out a project, is not yet local leadership. It is about communities and their organisations having both the resources and the authority to set priorities, decide how funds are spent, and define what success looks like. The PAPeS fund in Senegal shows this is possible when we change our perspective.

Second: fund the support ecosystem, not just individual projects. If we want locally led action at scale, we must invest in the organisations, networks and local intermediaries that make it possible for resources to reach communities, and that, through networking, technical support and advocacy, make the investments sustainable and long-term. For the GCF, that means opening its doors to women's funds, socio-environmental funds and local partners like IED Afrique and GAGGA.

To learn more:

Why Locally Led Adaptation Requires Funding the Whole Ecosystem

Rethinking Dutch intenrational cooperation: How ecosystem funding strengthens local ownership

The PAPeS small grants fund in Senegal

Both ENDS at COP31