1

Talking Points on GCF’s Support for NAPs NAP Expo, July 12 2016 In order to formulate and implement our NAPs, financial resources must be made available for developing countries especially for those that need it most i.e. LDCs. The Paris Agreement has recognized this and requested the Green Climate Fund to expedite its support to LDCs and other developing countries for the formulation and implementation of NAPs. Even prior to the adoption of the Paris Agreement, the Governing Instrument of the GCF states that the Fund can support developing countries in their climate change strategies and plans including NAPs (para 36). Furthermore, it states that the Fund will provide resources for readiness and preparatory activities, including for national adaptation plans (para 40). As reflected in the Governing Instrument of the GCF and further decisions taken by the Board (decision B.08/11, October 2014), NAPs could be supported under the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme with a cap of $1 million per country per year. In responding to the request to expedite its support to the formulation and implementation of the Paris Agreement, we at the Board during our last meeting (B.13, June 2016) took a decision on this matter (decision B.13/04). The Board decided for the Executive Director of the GCF to approve up to $3 million per country through the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme for the formulation of NAPs and/or other adaptation planning processes. Furthermore, it was decided that support for the formulation of NAPs and/or other national adaptation planning processes will be a separate activity area of the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme. It is important to note here that support for NAPs is additional to the $1 million cap per country per year under the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programmes. This decision must be welcomed for the reason that an additional up to $3 million per country is allocated for formulation of NAPs. This allows us to access this resource for the formulation of our NAPs while at the same time implementing other activity areas of the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme. Moreover, giving the decision making power to the Executive Director would expedite and simplify the application and approval process since the requirement and time required is much less than the project approval process.

2

However an expedited support can only be achieved if the disbursement of readiness support is accelerated which is a work underway by the Secretariat. Other important part of the NAP decision that is worth mentioning is that accredited entities can submit programmatic approaches for the formulation of multi-country NAPs and/or adaptation planning processes under the project approval process. With this new allocation of up to $3 million per country for the formulation of NAPs, additional resources for the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme will be needed as the Programme was initially allocated with only $15 million. Hence it is important to acknowledge that what is available is not sufficient to support formulation of our NAPs and support for other readiness and preparatory activities. Additionally, it is important to highlight that this decision is the first step as it only addresses support for formulation of NAPs with much work required to ensure sufficient resources are made available for developing countries to move beyond planning and start implementing their own plans. Implementation of NAPs should then be independent from Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme. What should we be doing? Now that the GCF has clearly laid out its plan to expedite its support for the formulation of NAPs, we should be proactive in undertaking the necessary steps required to access this resource. Today we should benefit from having with us representative/s from the GCF Secretariat to understand the steps that a potential recipient country would have to take to access support for NAP formulation. It will also be useful to talk to each other to share experiences on our national processes in formulating NAPs. Based on the experiences acquired from requesting Readiness and Preparatory Support, we should give feedback to the GCF Secretariat that could be taken on board in the revision of the existing application templates and processes. Mainly we should also be doing our home works and take the appropriate actions starting from working closely with readiness delivery partners and accredited entities to submit applications. Last but not least, we should regularly inform our representatives in the Adaptation Committee and the LEG Expert Group on how they could engage with the GCF Secretariat to improve access to financial support for the process to formulate and implement national adaptation plans as stated in decision B.13/04.