From Safeguards to Agency: Evaluating the Green Climate Fund’s Approach to Indigenous Peoples
Webinar | Online
-
Organized by:
Independent Evaluation Unit of the GCF
About the Event
The Green Climate Fund (GCF), as the world’s largest multilateral climate finance institution, plays a pivotal role in defining priorities and standards for the public sector’s engagement with climate action. Its policies and programming send strong normative signals to the wider ecosystem of climate finance, particularly around equity, inclusion, and environmental integrity. In 2018, the GCF adopted its Indigenous Peoples Policy (IPP), articulating commitments to Indigenous rights, traditional knowledge systems, and Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). As part of a scheduled policy review, the GCF’s Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) conducted an evaluation in 2024–2025 to assess the relevance, coherence, and effectiveness of the Fund’s approach to Indigenous Peoples (IPs). This evaluation is situated within a broader climate finance context in which IPs are recognized as essential custodians of ecosystems and climate resilience, yet remain largely excluded from direct access to international resources.
The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach, including portfolio analysis, document review, semi-structured interviews, case studies, and consultations with Indigenous stakeholders. The assessment covered 128 GCF-funded projects identified as involving Indigenous Peoples (IPs), alongside analysis of institutional mechanisms such as the IPP and the Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS). The evaluation examined both access to GCF finance as well as project-level implementation, with particular attention to participation, and outcomes for IPs communities.
The evaluation found that while the GCF’s Indigenous Peoples Policy is broadly aligned with UNFCCC, its operationalization remains uneven, and it can further align with international frameworks such as UNDRIP and ILO 169. The Fund’s country-driven model and reliance on accredited entities (AEs) limit the ability of IPs and organizations to shape or access climate finance directly. FPIC processes were inconsistently applied: out of 128 relevant projects, only a small subset submitted adequate FPIC documentation, and fewer demonstrated high-quality, participatory engagement. Case studies revealed that consultations were often delayed, inaccessible, or conducted in a manner that undermined meaningful consent.
Despite positive examples—such as Indigenous women’s leadership in projects in Colombia and Vanuatu—the overall pattern indicates that Indigenous participation is often treated as a procedural requirement rather than a substantive partnership. Moreover, the GCF does not currently track disaggregated data on IP beneficiaries, outcomes, or co-benefits, limiting institutional learning and accountability. While the GCF has made provisions for redress through the IRM and project-level grievance mechanisms, access remains a challenge for many Indigenous communities due to informational, geographic, and linguistic barriers.
The evaluation concluded that the GCF’s approach to IPs remains largely protective—focused on avoiding harm—rather than proactively empowering IPs as climate actors in their own right. The absence of dedicated financing mechanisms, coupled with limited implementation oversight and weak data systems, constrains the transformative potential of the IPP. The evaluation underscores the gap between strong policy intent and weak operational delivery, driven in part by structural limitations within the GCF’s business model and by insufficient internal incentives for Indigenous inclusion.
To address these shortcomings, the evaluation made five key recommendations: (1) strengthen and operationalize the IPP across GCF policies and instruments; (2) invest in capacity and resourcing for meaningful engagement with IPs; (3) enhance monitoring, reporting, and oversight of IP-related safeguards and commitments; (4) reduce structural barriers to IP access and participation, including through new funding modalities; and (5) articulate a clearer strategic vision for the role of Indigenous Peoples in the GCF’s mandate and programming. Fully realizing the IPP’s potential would position the GCF not only as a safeguard leader but as a catalyst for Indigenous-led, locally grounded climate solutions.
The evaluation used a mixed-methods approach, including portfolio analysis, document review, semi-structured interviews, case studies, and consultations with Indigenous stakeholders. The assessment covered 128 GCF-funded projects identified as involving Indigenous Peoples (IPs), alongside analysis of institutional mechanisms such as the IPP and the Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS). The evaluation examined both access to GCF finance as well as project-level implementation, with particular attention to participation, and outcomes for IPs communities.
The evaluation found that while the GCF’s Indigenous Peoples Policy is broadly aligned with UNFCCC, its operationalization remains uneven, and it can further align with international frameworks such as UNDRIP and ILO 169. The Fund’s country-driven model and reliance on accredited entities (AEs) limit the ability of IPs and organizations to shape or access climate finance directly. FPIC processes were inconsistently applied: out of 128 relevant projects, only a small subset submitted adequate FPIC documentation, and fewer demonstrated high-quality, participatory engagement. Case studies revealed that consultations were often delayed, inaccessible, or conducted in a manner that undermined meaningful consent.
Despite positive examples—such as Indigenous women’s leadership in projects in Colombia and Vanuatu—the overall pattern indicates that Indigenous participation is often treated as a procedural requirement rather than a substantive partnership. Moreover, the GCF does not currently track disaggregated data on IP beneficiaries, outcomes, or co-benefits, limiting institutional learning and accountability. While the GCF has made provisions for redress through the IRM and project-level grievance mechanisms, access remains a challenge for many Indigenous communities due to informational, geographic, and linguistic barriers.
The evaluation concluded that the GCF’s approach to IPs remains largely protective—focused on avoiding harm—rather than proactively empowering IPs as climate actors in their own right. The absence of dedicated financing mechanisms, coupled with limited implementation oversight and weak data systems, constrains the transformative potential of the IPP. The evaluation underscores the gap between strong policy intent and weak operational delivery, driven in part by structural limitations within the GCF’s business model and by insufficient internal incentives for Indigenous inclusion.
To address these shortcomings, the evaluation made five key recommendations: (1) strengthen and operationalize the IPP across GCF policies and instruments; (2) invest in capacity and resourcing for meaningful engagement with IPs; (3) enhance monitoring, reporting, and oversight of IP-related safeguards and commitments; (4) reduce structural barriers to IP access and participation, including through new funding modalities; and (5) articulate a clearer strategic vision for the role of Indigenous Peoples in the GCF’s mandate and programming. Fully realizing the IPP’s potential would position the GCF not only as a safeguard leader but as a catalyst for Indigenous-led, locally grounded climate solutions.
Speakers
| Name | Title | Biography |
|---|---|---|
| Genta Konci | Evaluation Specialist, Green Climate Fund | Genta is an Evaluation Specialist at the IEU with 16+ years of experience across UNDP, UNEP, and others. She has led country and thematic evaluations, and holds a BA in Sociology and an MA in International Development from Deakin University. |
| Rishabh Moudgill | Policy and Evaluation Specialist | Rishabh is the policy and legal focal point at the IEU, working at the intersection of law, climate politics, and institutional policy in evaluations. He holds an LL.M. in International Law, an LL.B. in Law and Criminology, a PGDip in Environment Law, and is a YLAC Policy Fellow. |