By Faridat Salifu
At the recent board meeting of the Green Climate Fund (GCF) in Songdo, South Korea, discussions turned contentious as countries debated who should fill the funding gap created by the United States’ withdrawal of $4 billion in pledges.
This meeting marked the first since President Donald Trump canceled previous commitments, leading to a significant reshaping of the funding landscape.
Germany and Sweden urged wealthier developing nations to contribute more to the GCF, suggesting that high-income countries outside the traditional donor group should step up.
However, Saudi Arabia, which falls into this category, firmly rejected the notion, labeling the suggestion as “unacceptable.”
The absence of the U.S. delegation cast a long shadow over the proceedings, highlighting the impact of its withdrawal on climate finance.
The loss of U.S. funding raises concerns about the GCF’s ability to support clean energy initiatives and adaptation efforts in developing countries.
The GCF had aimed to raise $13.6 billion for its 2024 to 2027 fundraising round, following a $3 billion pledge announced by then-Vice President Kamala Harris at COP28.
However, with U.S. contributions off the table, the GCF now anticipates deploying just over $10 billion through 2027, risking stagnation in its funding levels.
Related Posts
Mafalda Duarte, the GCF Executive Director, emphasized the critical need for continued climate finance from all corners of the globe. While board members echoed her calls for additional contributions, opinions diverged on potential sources.
A representative from Germany pointed to “high-income, non-traditional donors” and the private sector as key contributors, urging nations like China and the Gulf States to participate.
In contrast, the Swedish delegate encouraged existing contributors to increase their donations and highlighted that the fund had successfully expanded its donor base over time.
Despite the GCF’s appeal for broader support, Saudi Arabia’s representative criticized the pressure on developing nations to compensate for the U.S. withdrawal, suggesting that developed countries should hold the U.S. accountable for its historical contributions.
The meeting concluded without a consensus on how to address the funding shortfall. Nonetheless, the GCF board approved $686.8 million for 11 new projects across 42 countries, including its inaugural projects in Togo and Serbia, bringing total funding to $16.6 billion.
The GCF aims to grow its portfolio to at least $50 billion by 2030, but officials warned that failure to secure pledges could hinder efforts to support climate-vulnerable communities.
In a significant move, the GCF board decided to establish a regional presence to enhance its connection with the countries it serves, a strategy aimed at increasing the effectiveness of its projects.
Duarte emphasized the importance of local action in climate initiatives, stating, “If climate action is local action, then the Green Climate Fund needs to be local too.”
The specifics of this regional strategy are still in development.
