Why most of Africa missed Green Climate Fund money

Drought in Dabel village, Marsabit County.

A man shows the carcasses of his cows that died due to drought in Dabel village, Marsabit County. Environmental matters are mostly not at the top of the national agenda. With climate change becoming a priority, attitudes are changing.

Photo credit: File | Nation Media Group

What you need to know:

  • There is, therefore, a need to build the capacity of Nema and Kenya Commercial Bank—the Kenyan accredited entities in charge of GCF—in presenting proposals that meet GCF requirements.
  • Secondly, with most developing countries yet to access GCF funds, there is a need to revisit the approval.
  • Although GCF says it has simplified the process for both mitigation and adaptation applications, it is still complex.


The Green Climate Fund (GCF), established in 2010, is the largest funding mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC).

It seeks to assist developing countries to mitigate and adapt to climate change. To date, however, very few African countries can access GCF funds directly.

First, environmental matters are mostly not at the top of the national agenda. With climate change becoming a priority, attitudes are changing.

Most staff in environmental institutions are familiar with general environmental issues but not climate change; the few need further orientation to climate change science, which will require financial support. 

Without capacity building, African countries are not able to access GCF funds.

Countries like Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and the Philippines, which successfully got their national entities accredited to secure GCF funding, have effective institutional capacity.

There is, therefore, a need to build the capacity of Nema and Kenya Commercial Bank—the Kenyan accredited entities in charge of GCF—in presenting proposals that meet GCF requirements.

Secondly, with most developing countries yet to access GCF funds, there is a need to revisit the approval.

Although GCF says it has simplified the process for both mitigation and adaptation applications, it is still complex.

The GCF board should ease the approval criteria. It takes up to 24 months for proposals to be approved (or rejected) by the GCF board.

Thirdly, to make African countries feel they are part of the GCF, the secretariat and board need to devise another funding-sharing mechanism.

For example, some UN agencies, including UNDP, earmark allocations for different countries taking into consideration their status—such as least developed and post-crisis—so that the vulnerable ones and their populations are not left behind.

GCF, as the largest climate change funding mechanism, should be flexible and not lump them together with those that are in a better position to access the funding.

Lastly, according to the latest GCF dashboard, there are 15 approved projects for Kenya.

Of these, only two are funded directly to Kenya, through both the accredited entity (Nema) and the designated authority (The National Treasury).

The rest are regional and inter-regional, covering many countries under multilateral banks and agencies like the World Bank, African Development Bank, GIZ and IUCN.

Little impact

The latter projects have had little impact on the participating countries. It is unlikely that international and intergovernmental organisations will build the capacity of local institutions, which is key to addressing the negative impacts of climate change.

For a country to benefit, the government should access the funds directly through nationally designated authorities and accredited entities.

It will then be able to build capacity to better deal with climate change-related issues.

GCF funding is intended to benefit African countries but this goal seems to continue to be elusive.

Dr Kakonge, a development expert, is former Kenya’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the UN Office and WTO in Geneva, Switzerland. [email protected].