Speakers:

• Karen Ernst, Head of the IIU 

• Albert Lihalakha, Deputy Head, IIU  

• Hyung Tae Kim (Mike), Chief of Investigations, IIU  

• Sanjeev Narrainen, Integrity & Compliance Manager, IIU  

• Bayartsetseg Jigmiddash, Outreach & Engagement Manager, IIU

Key Takeaways: 

• Climate change is complex, and we urgently need to scale up climate finance to meet this challenge – but this also means that there will be more money that is vulnerable to corruption and fraud. 
• The Independent Integrity Unit is one of the three independent units of the Green Climate Fund and is an oversight function reporting directly to the GCF Board that works to ensure integrity in GCF-funded projects. 
• The GCF Integrity Policy Framework is the core outline of policies that structures the work of IIU, GCF, and its partners. 

Summary:

As an introduction to the Independent Integrity Unit and its work, Head of the IIU Karen Ernst described how the Green Climate Fund is a unique country-owned partnership institution that develops flexible financing solutions to accelerate climate action. But with this acceleration in climate finance comes more complexity and more risk, making these funds vulnerable to corruption and worsening climate impacts on vulnerable communities. As one of the independent units of the GCF, the Independent Integrity Unit works to safeguard integrity in GCF-funded projects. IIU is responsible for investigating integrity violations, building capacity among stakeholders, providing policy advice, promoting awareness of integrity standards, and collaborating with peer institutions. The Unit does this through three workstreams: Investigations & Anticorruption, led by Chief of Investigations Mike Hyung Tae Kim; Prevention & Compliance, led by Integrity & Compliance Manager Sanjeev Narrainen; and Outreach & Engagement, led by Outreach & Engagement Manager Bayartsetseg Jigmiddash. Another key part of the prevention and risk work of the Unit is Deputy Head Albert Lihalakha, who oversees the machine learning and data analysis aspects of the IIU. Everyone’s work within the Unit is guided by the GCF Integrity Policy Framework, which outlines the policies that structures the work of IIU, GCF, and its partners. 

Speakers:

• Brice Böhmer, Climate & Environment Lead, Transparency International

• January Sanchez, Integrity specialist, ADB Office of Anticorruption and Integrity  

• Richelieu Lomax, Senior Litigation Specialist, World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency

• Dr. Nana Künkel, Coordinator of the Agriculture & Food Cluster, Thai Rice GCF project, GIZ 

Moderator: Albert Lihalakha, Deputy Head, IIU

Key Takeaways:

• There are three ways in which corruption hinders climate action. It drives climate change, delays and dilutes initiatives to mitigate and adapt to climate impacts, and reduces the effectiveness of climate interventions.
• Organizations need to stress integrity, enhance specific and agile interventions, and be open and inclusive.
• Investigations stemming from complaints regarding integrity violations are the first means to fight fraud and corruption. The second way is to prevent these practices from happening by employing innovative ways to fight corrupt practices. Finally, organizations must cooperate directly with civil society to address the real-world challenges that it faces. 

Summary:

In this session, Deputy Head of the IIU Albert Lihalakha moderated a panel on corruption and fraud as threats to climate action sustainability. Brice Böhmer, Climate & Environment Lead for Transparency International, said that corruption impacts people directly, and usually it hits the most vulnerable people. There are three ways in which corruption hinders climate action. It drives climate change, delays and dilutes initiatives to mitigate and adapt to climate impacts, and it reduces the effectiveness of climate interventions. The scale and urgency of climate change makes finance going towards these projects especially vulnerable to corruption. Most of the countries where climate finance is sent also suffer from generally high levels of corruption. As such, the negative impacts of this practice are amplified. Organizations need to stress integrity, enhance specific and agile interventions, and be open and inclusive. Richelieu Lomax, Senior Litigation Specialist at the World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency, highlighted the important role of cooperation among international organizations with a focus on integrity and how policies can mitigate the negative effects of corruption. January Sanchez, Integrity Specialist at the Asian Development Bank Office of Anticorruption and Integrity, said that investigations stemming from complaints regarding integrity violations is the first way to fight fraud and corruption. The second way is to prevent these practices from happening by employing innovative ways to fight corrupt practices. Finally, organizations must cooperate directly with civil society to address the real-world challenges that they face. Dr. Nana Künkel, Coordinator of the Agriculture & Food Cluster and the Thai Rice GCF project for GIZ, stressed the importance of peer-to-peer learning activities, especially between entities that are both up- and down-stream in the financing cycle. Larger organizations which have a lot of expertise and a long history of fighting corruption and promoting integrity should help each other to build capacity.

Speakers:

• Sanjeev Narrainen, Integrity and Compliance Manager, IIU

• Catherine Franco, Senior Integrity Officer, ADB Office of Anticorruption and Integrity 

Key Takeaways:

• Conflicts of Interest can be a serious reputational risk for organisations and make them more vulnerable to corruption.

• The responsibility of identifying and addressing Conflicts of Interest rests with the staff, who should avoid perceived conflicts of interest. 

Summary:

In this session, IIU Integrity & Compliance Manager Sanjeev Narrainen, aided by Senior Integrity Officer for the ADB Office of Anticorruption and Integrity Catherine Franco, led a workshop on mitigation and management of Conflicts of Interest (CoI). They explained that a CoI is a situation in which a party involved in relevant decision-making processes has interests that could influence the performance of official duties improperly. While CoI is not a GCF prohibited practice per se, it still presents a major risk for all organizations. This is especially true for organizations that are involved in climate finance, since they would be badly damaged by reputational loss. To avoid CoI, the GCF relies on an Integrity Framework that is divided into internal and external policies. The former is composed of a Policy on Ethics and Conflict of Interest, Administrative Guidelines, and the Policy on Prohibited Practices (PPP). The latter is instead focused on counterparties and is made up of the initial fiduciary standards, the PPP, and the organisation’s Accreditation Master Agreement with IIU. CoI needs to be addressed on an ongoing basis. If this is not the case, an organization’s strategy might become ineffective, its decision-making bodies poor, its accountability and oversight mechanisms weak, and integrity risks might arise. A basic standard of conduct dictates that Counterparties cannot act in any manner that undermines public confidence and trust in the Fund; they must act with tolerance, sensitivity, and respect for cultural differences; they must observe the laws of different jurisdictions; and they must report to the IIU any suspected misconduct associated with the GCF. In CoI terminology, interests are the benefits that can exert influence on an individual’s decision-making, creating a risk for corruption. People usually get into CoI because of a lack of understanding of ethical values, which in turn hinders ethical decision-making. An effective CoI program thus fosters ethical conduct, encourages employees to disclose their interests, become more responsible for their roles within the organization and reduces reputational risks.

Speaker:

• Hyung Tae Kim (Mike), Chief of Investigations, IIU 

Key Takeaways:

• IIU addresses instances of Prohibited Practices through an effective policy framework, internal controls and risk detection, and investigative deterrence.

• IIU investigations are a four-step process: receipt of the complaint, intake assessment, preliminary assessment, and depending on the findings, the start of the full investigation.

• Responsiveness and detailed reporting are required of AEs/DPs, who are also obligated to ensure full access and cooperation in IIU investigations and proactive self-report any suspected integrity violations. 

Summary:

In this session, IIU Chief of Investigations Mike Hyung Tae Kim explained the IIU investigations process. The primary mandate of the IIU is to investigate alleged integrity violations, which are divided into internal and external cases. In the former, the focus falls upon Covered Individuals within the GCF who might have committed misconduct, prohibited practices, or be the subjects of conflicts of interest. In the case of external investigations, the focus is on Counterparties and the possibility that they might have committed prohibited practices. Prohibited practices are fought through an effective policy framework, internal controls and risk detection, and investigative deterrence. The IIU has a standard investigation process. Upon the receipt of a complaint, the IIU performs intake and preliminary assessments to evaluate its mandate and whether the allegations warrant a full investigation. Complaints to the IIU can be delivered via a multilanguage hotline, by e-mail, or though the Unit's official website. In case the findings support the allegations, a full investigation is then launched. Following the approval of the Investigation Report by the IIU Head, the Unit initiates an administrative remedies and exclusion process, and submits its findings and recommendations to the relevant parties. Subsequently, the case is closed. Especially important for the Integrity Forum audience is that all Accredited Entities (AEs) and Delivery Partners (DPs) are obligated to cooperate with the IIU for investigations. They shall provide logistical support and ensure full access to records and personnel. AEs/DPs shall also notify the Fund of alleged or suspected prohibited practices, keep it informed of the progress of investigations, and provide a final report on the findings. The IIU can refer the complaint to the relevant AE/DP if the case does not warrant a separate investigation. The IIU has also developed a template for AEs/DPs to streamline the reporting of investigations findings.

Speakers:

• Maribel Cabrera Alfaro, Operative Coordinator, Fundación Avina - Costa Rica

• Nawa Raj Dhakal, Executive Director, Alternative Energy Promotion Centre - Nepal

• Keith Nichols, Head of Programme Development and Management Unit, Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre - Belize

• Christian Fighter Manzi, Rural Landscapes Adaptation Specialist, Ministry of Environment - Rwanda

Key Takeaways:

• GCF Direct Access Entities are a diverse group of institutions: representing different regions, different organisational structures, different funding sources, and more, making it critical to discuss common ground that connects everyone.
• DAE panelists from Costa Rica, Nepal, Belize, and Rwanda discussed their experiences with the GCF reaccreditation process and implementing GCF policies to share lessons learned and challenges with other participants.

Summary:

IIU Outreach & Engagement Manager Bayartsetseg Jigmiddash moderated a panel of Direct Access Entity representatives to share their experiences on the path to integrity and demonstrate that across DAEs from different regions and with different structures and missions, there are common challenges and lessons learned by virtue of being accredited with GCF. All panelists shared their experiences with the re-accreditation process and implementing GCF integrity policies. Keith Nichols from the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre discussed how his organisation went through a thorough policy review process as part of re-accreditation that helped ensure that GCF policies were integrated throughout the organisation. Maribel Cabrera Alfaro from Fundación Avina shared how her organisation went from having just a few policies to 40, and the long process to finalise those so the procedures from GCF could be implemented properly. Nawa Raj Dhakal from the Alternate Energy Promotion Centre talked about the structure of his organisation and how that influences the process for establishing new policies. And Christian Fighter Manzi from the Ministry of Environment in Rwanda described the policy renewal process within his government that allows a greater clarity on how the policies should be implemented across all relevant parties, including suppliers, contractors, and staff. 

Speakers:

• Sanjeev Narrainen, Integrity & Compliance Manager, IIU

• January Sanchez, Senior Integrity Specialist, ADB

• Catherine Franco, Senior Integrity Officer, ADB

• Niraj Kumar, Internal Auditor, SPREP

Moderator: Albert Lihalakha, Deputy Head, IIU

Key Takeaways:

• The use of AI and machine learning allows the GCF to capture sentiments and identify potential risks related to corruption.

• There is no universal way to address anti-corruption measures. It should be a consultation process with stakeholders. For a Proactive Integrity Review (PIR) to be implementable, recommendations and findings must be tailored to the specifics of the situation and context of each organization that participates in a PIR.

• PIRs are meant to come up with recommendations for executing agencies and must contain mitigation measures, as well as a timeline for their implementation. 

Summary:

IIU Deputy Head Albert Lihalakha moderated a panel on Proactive Integrity Reviews (PIRs) as a capacity-building tool. The use of AI and machine learning (ML) in the process of developing PIRs allows the GCF to capture sentiments and identify potential risks related to corruption. This technology works together with a human operator, who reviews the AI-generated narrative on potential red flags before they are taken into consideration. Data from the field is very useful to make the AI tools that carry out PIRs more effective. IIU Integrity & Compliance Manager Sanjeev Narrainen said that it is important to raise awareness regarding the importance of PIRs. There is no universal way to address anti-corruption measures, so it should be a consultation process with stakeholders. There are many factors that must be considered for a PIR to be implementable. Recommendations and findings must be tailored to the specifics of the situation and context of each organization that participates in a PIR. Niraj Kumar, Internal Auditor at the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme, pointed out the difficulty that smaller organizations often face due to reduced budgets and the impossibility for them to increase the administrative costs tied to improved PIRs. January Sanchez and Catherine Franco, respectively Senior Integrity Specialist and Senior Integrity Officer at the ADB, said that PIRs are meant to come up with recommendations for executing agencies and must contain mitigation measures, as well as a timeline for their implementation.

Speaker:

• Gaurav Godhwani, Executive Director, Civic Data Lab

Key Takeaways:

• Digital Public Goods (DPGs), or public software and data tools, can track public funds, monitor public procurement data, and strengthen citizen participation.

• DPG tools are very diverse and can be tailored to the specific needs of an individual or organization.

• Most governments currently still publish budget documents in non-reusable and non-comparable formats, while public procurement data remains scattered. 

Summary:

Executive Director for Civic Data Lab Gaurav Godhwani spoke at a plenary session about the use of data and technology for enhanced integrity in climate action and as a tool for prevention. He highlighted the four most severe risks humanity will face over the next ten years, which are all related to climate change. These are the failure to mitigate and adapt to the phenomenon, the natural disasters and extreme weather events it will spur, and finally the ensuing biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. Corruption can negatively impact interventions within these fields. Digital public goods (DPGs), which are public software and data tools that contribute to sustainable digital development, can help enhance integrity. These tools are very diverse and can be tailored to the specific needs of an individual or organization. DPGs can have three main functions. The first is to track public funds using open-source data platforms to collate, standardize, and publish data. It would enable the tracking of budgets and expenditures on major welfare programs both in temporal as well as geographical terms. Unfortunately, most governments currently still publish budget documents in non-reusable and non-comparable formats. The second main function of DPGs is to monitor public procurement data, which remains scattered in the field of climate action. Intelligent data solutions, such as a holistic data ecosystem, could enhance disaster risk reduction. Such an example is the Structural Equation Model for Preparedness Assessment used in Assam, India, to mitigate flooding risks.  There, Preparedness Assessments can be carried out both at district, and revenue circle levels. Finally, the third main function of DPGs is strengthening citizen participation. Citizens can thus file environmental reports that are recorded on geographical heatmaps.

Speaker:

• Richelieu Lomax, Senior Litigation Specialist, World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency

Key Takeaways:

• During the project cycle, the moment that is most at risk of fraud is procurement because bidders collude to seek higher prices and officials steer contracts in favor of bidders.

• The fraud triangle explains that a person can be pressured or motivated into committing fraud because of the presence of an opportunity, after which he/she rationalizes corruption as an accepted practice.

• The most important preventive measure is due diligence throughout the procurement process. 

Summary:

In this learning session, Senior Litigation Specialist Richelieu Lomax of the World Bank Integrity Vice Presidency spoke about detecting and mitigating fraud during procurement. During the project cycle, the moment that is most at risk of fraud is procurement. This process often suffers from bidders colluding to seek higher prices and officials steering contracts to favored bidders. That is because this process is at the nexus between service and money, and it invokes competition. The process starts with the planning phase, after which actual bidding begins. Then, a proper evaluation is carried out, and the process moves into the phase of contract management. The fraud triangle is a visualization that tries to explain the reasons behind corrupt practices. It thus explains that a person can be pressured or motivated into committing fraud because of the presence of an opportunity, after which he/she rationalizes corruption as an accepted practice. Among the many causes that make the procurement process vulnerable to risks are its complexity, the lack of accountability and the presence of business and financial interests at stake. To preemptively detect fraud, some of the indications that can flag the presence of fraud are, for example, unusual specifications, discrimination against certain bidders, and multiple contract amendments. Preventive measures also help to identify control weaknesses, such as leaked documents, poorly defined procurement plans, or contract splitting. These measures can also enhance control mechanisms. This can be done in a number of ways, for example by conducting risk audits and encouraging reporting. Finally, a key preventive measure is due diligence, including a mandatory background check on the procurement companies and their employees.

Speakers:

• Karen Ernst, Head, Independent Integrity Unit

• Brice Böhmer, Climate & Environment Lead, Climate Governance Integrity

• Anoukh de Soysa, Vertical Accountability Specialist, SANCUS Project

• Wahidullah Azizi, Policy & Advocacy Project Associate, Climate Governance Integrity Programme

Key Takeaways:

• At GCF, integrity matters for safeguarding GCF resources, ensuring accountability within our work, and ensuring the effective implementation of funds in GCF projects.

• Creating a culture of integrity within an organisation is one where honesty, ethical principles and standards are upheld by everyone in the institution, from leadership to entry-level employees.

• There are five signposts on the pathway to integrity: setting the tone from the top, establishing integrity policies, facilitating oversight, raising awareness, and addressing cultural barriers.

Summary:

Ensuring integrity within GCF projects and programmes is critical to safeguard GCF resources and prevent maladaptation within GCF-funded activities. As IIU Head Karen Ernst explains, there is a responsibility from Accredited Entities to ensure the prudent management of GCF resources, and that entails establishing a culture of integrity that is embodied throughout the organisation. In a presentation led by Brice Böhmer, Anoukh de Soysa, and Wahidullah Azizi from Transparency International, they discuss how this culture represents an environment where honesty, ethical principles and standards are upheld and practiced from leadership to employees and is characterised by trust, transparency, accountability, participation and a commitment to anti-corruption. There are five key signposts on the pathway to integrity: building the ‘tone from the top,’ establishing integrity policies and functions, facilitating oversight and collaboration, raising awareness and building capacity, and addressing cultural barriers to integrity. These signposts cover the commitment of an organisation’s leadership to ethical principles, enforcing a Code of Conduct throughout the organisation, having external oversight to ensure monitoring and accountability, educating stakeholders on integrity issues, and identifying and addressing cultural differences. Through groupwork activities, DAE participants discussed challenges and actions around these five signposts to help define a way forward for fostering this culture within their organisations. 

Speaker:

• Qian Cheng, Environmental and Social Safeguards Specialist, GCF Office of Sustainability and Inclusion

Key Takeaways:

• GCF has a zero-tolerance policy for instances of sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (SEAH).

• Within the GCF SEAH policy, Accredited Entities and Executing Entities are responsible for conducting due diligence to prevent and respond to allegations of SEAH in a survivor-centered and gender-responsive way.

• The GCF Office of Sustainability & Inclusion has developed a SEAH Risk Assessment Tool to help stakeholders identify SEAH risks and effectively implement policies. 

Summary:

In this session, Qian Cheng from the GCF Office of Sustainability & Inclusion outlines the responsibilities of GCF partners in safeguarding against sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (SEAH) in GCF-funded activities. GCF has a zero-tolerance policy for SEAH, and it is imperative that AEs have thorough due diligence to prevent and respond effectively to SEAH in a survivor-centered and gender-responsive way. Effectively implementing a SEAH policy requires application throughout the project cycle, including integrated through concept notes, gender action plans, funding proposal development and review, legal arrangements, performance monitoring, and project evaluation. There are many things that can be done to mitigate the risk of SEAH in GCF investments, including: working with relevant local gender/social welfare networks, strong enforcement of SEAH policies, sensitising community members on SEAH safeguarding, identifying SEAH champions, providing trainings to stakeholders, supporting local campaigns on SEAH prevention, and applying messages to local community spaces. To assist GCF stakeholders in implementing this policy, the Office of Sustainability & Inclusion has created a SEAH Risk Assessment Tool that is a step-by-step guide to assessing and identifying SEAH risks in GCF-funded activities, including checklists and materials so that partners do not have to develop these policies from scratch.

Speaker:

• Daisuke Horikoshi, Principal Evaluation Officer, GCF Independent Evaluation Unit

Key Takeaways:

• The GCF Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (RPSP) was launched in 2014 to provide technical and capacity assistance to countries to help lower their emissions, but an Independent Evaluation Unit report shows that while it is an ambitious initiative, it has had the least effect in strengthening the National Designated Authority in vulnerable countries.

• Least Developed Countries and African states continue to face significant challenges in accessing GCF Readiness support.

• In a synthesis of the Direct Access modality, the Independent Evaluation Unit highlights the need to clarify the vision of the direct access model, develop a stronger strategic country-level approach, and enhance support for implementation. 

Summary:

The GCF Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (RPSP) was launched in 2014 and was designed to provide technical assistance and in-country institutional strengthening. In an evaluation of the programme by the Independent Evaluation Unit of the GCF, Principal Evaluation Officer Daisuke Horikoshi explains that the pros of the RPSP are that it reflects greater ambitions compared to other global funds and has helped to strengthen certain National Designated Authorities (NDAs). The cons are that the “one size fits all” structure is not suitable and that vulnerable countries show the least effect of strengthening their NDAs. After 9 years of operations, RPSP is nearly in a position to systematically demonstrate its added value to GCF and wider field of climate finance. However, LDCs and African states continue to face significant challenges in accessing Readiness support, and the application process remains time consuming and costly. In another report, a synthesis of the Direct Access modality, the Independent Evaluation Unit found that there were challenges regarding the lack of clarity in the project approval process, lack of staff capacity, low awareness of requirements, and high transaction costs. This is represented in the portfolio by DAEs with projects. Five DAES account for 66% of the DAE project portfolio and 63% of DAEs have no project approved. Only 12% of DAEs have more than one project. To improve this process, the Independent Evaluation Unit recommends clarifying the vision and purpose of direct access, creating a strategic country-level approach, and enhancing support for implementation.

Speakers:

• January Sanchez, Integrity specialist, ADB Office of Anticorruption and Integrity

• Catherine Franco, Senior Integrity Officer, ADB Office of Anticorruption and Integrity

Key Takeaways:

• Corruption is the single greatest obstacle to economic and social development around the world.

• Primary internal control weaknesses are the main contributor to corruption and fraud.

• The Asian Development Bank Office of Anticorruption and Integrity mitigates integrity risks, investigates integrity violations, and promotes integrity among stakeholders. 

Summary:

In this session, Senior Integrity Specialist January Sanchez and Senior Integrity Officer Catherine Franco of the ADB Office of Anticorruption and Integrity talked about business integrity programs and their role in expanding the fraud and corruption prevention toolkit. Every year, a sum equivalent to more than 5% of the global GDP is lost to bribes and corruption. The primary cause of fraud and corruption is the weakness of internal controls. A Business Integrity Program can help improve them. An effective Business Integrity Program includes written policies, procedures, and Standards of Conduct; setting a tone of integrity from top management; robust reporting channels; and review and monitoring mechanisms. Currently, the most common anti-fraud controls around the world are the external audits of financial statements and a code of conduct policy, while management review is the one that is most likely to be modified or implemented. Non-profits are usually the types of organizations that are most likely to modify their anti-fraud controls. The goal of the ADB Office of Anticorruption and Integrity is to mitigate integrity risks, investigate integrity violations, and promote integrity among stakeholders. The Bank’s anticorruption framework is composed of its policies (the Anticorruption Policy and Strategy, and the Integrity Principles and Guidelines), its operational instructions, and its administrative orders.

Speakers:

• Dr. Manish Raj Pandey, Head of the Department of Climate Change and Knowledge Management, National Trust for Nature Conservation - Nepal

• Milagros Moscoso García, Compliance and Integrity Officer, Profonanpe - Perú

• Nguyen Hoang Trung, Director of Foreign Loan Department, Vietnam Development Bank - Vietnam

• Nawa Raj Dhakal, Executive Director, Alternative Energy Promotion Center - Nepal

Moderator: Lisa Scholz, Technical Advisor, GIZ

Key Takeaways:

• The Peer-to-Peer Learning Alliance is a network designed to support DAEs with sharing their experiences and fostering knowledge exchange on safeguarding climate finance.

• Being a part of this Alliance has helped the current members attain GCF accreditation, strengthen their organisation’s integrity policy frameworks, and share advice on policy development.

• Starting in 2024, IIU will take over the organisation and scaling up of the Alliance, including welcoming a new class of members. 

Summary:

The Peer-to-Peer Learning Alliance for Climate Finance Integrity is a network of seven GCF Direct Access Entities organised in a collaboration between GIZ, Transparency International, and IIU. The goal of this Alliance, explains Lisa Scholz from GIZ, is for DAEs to come together and support each other on matters related to integrity policies, provide a trust-based, confidential platform for DAEs to share their experiences, and foster knowledge exchange on how to safeguard climate finance. Some of the key outcomes so far of the Alliance include that all entities have achieved GCF accreditation, and the Alliance supported many of them through this process. Many of the members have also updated the policies within their organisations to help strengthen their integrity frameworks. In 2023, the Alliance has published knowledge products and hosted webinars on four integrity topics. Next year, IIU will take over the secretariat of the Alliance and lead the scaling up of its impact, including more DAEs in the process and helping ensure that it is more peer driven. The four panel members – Manish Raj Pandey, Milagros Moscoso, Nguyen Hoang Trung, and Nawa Raj Dhakal – shared their experiences on how the Alliance has helped them with the accreditation process, policy implementation, and submitting required documents to GCF, as well as other ways being part of this collaboration has helped them all benefit and grow.