Matthew C. Nisbet, ‘Strategic philanthropy in the post‐Cap‐and‐Trade years: Reviewing U.S. climate and energy foundation funding’

'For several decades, philanthropists in the United States have played a behind‐the‐scenes role in framing climate change as a social problem. These foundations have defined climate change primarily as a pollution problem solvable by enacting a price on carbon and by shifting markets in the direction of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency practices. Funding has favored “insider” groups that push for policy action by way of negotiation, coalition building, and compromise, rather than “outsider” groups that specialize in grassroots organizing. Philanthropists have also placed less priority on funding for other low‐carbon energy sources such as nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, or natural gas, nor have they invested in actions intended to boost societal resilience, protect public health, or to address questions of equity and justice. But in the years following the failure of the 2010 Federal cap and trade bill, a review of available grants from 19 major foundations indicates that philanthropists responded to calls for new directions. Funding shifted to focus on state‐ or municipal‐level mitigation and adaptation actions and to the needs of low‐income/minority communities. Significant funding was also devoted to mobilizing public opinion and to opposing the fossil fuel industry. Nearly a quarter of all funding, however, remained dedicated to promoting renewable energy and efficiency‐related actions with comparatively little funding devoted to other low‐carbon energy technologies. The review of past funding trends provides implications for assessing philanthropic strategy during the Donald J. Trump presidency and beyond.'WIREs Climate Change e524

W.M. Fonta, E.T. Ayuk & T van Huysen, “Africa and the Green Climate Fund: current challenges and future opportunities”

Climate Policy (forthcoming)
"Although the Green Climate Fund (GCF) is widely commendable in several ways, access to the Fund has been very challenging for many African countries. Using GCF published statistics, we identify possible challenges likely to be responsible for this. First, we present an assessment of the GCF’s Readiness Support Programme with respect to how the programme’s performance may have affected achievement of African countries’ readiness outcomes. Second, a critical evaluation of the status of African GCF portfolio (pipeline and approved projects) provides a means by which to assess how well Africa’s current portfolio aligns with GCF strategic impact areas, results areas and investment priorities. We then discuss GCF access modalities and the implications of relying on International Accredited Entities (IAEs) to indirectly access the Fund. The readiness support assessment indicates that the distribution of support requests and funding approvals is nearly equal across the regions of Africa, Asia Pacific and Latin America and the Caribbean. However, when the regions are considered individually, Africa demonstrates lower approvals with respect to requests and securing funding. Results from the GCF portfolio evaluation reveal that little or no attention has been devoted to GCF critical result areas such as forests and land use or transport, where great potentials for low-carbon development transitions exist. With respect to access modalities, the IAE financing mechanism currently provides access to the Fund for the majority of projects in both the global and African GCF portfolios. The implications of these findings are extensively discussed."