What US withdrawal from green climate fund means for Rwanda

Gilbert Kwizera, 21, is among families resettled in Kaniga Model Village in Gicumbi District, Northern Province. Like many others in the area, he still carries painful memories of the deadly floods and landslides that struck the region in 2023, killing dozens and displacing hundreds. Kwizera recalls the night heavy rains triggered a landslide from a hillside above their home, burying the room where his mother and younger sister were sleeping. ALSO READ: GCF-funded ‘Green Gicumbi’ to strengthen district’s climate resilience “The soil came down and collapsed onto the house. We woke up in confusion, and my elder sibling and I ran outside,” he said. Neighbours rushed to the scene after being alerted, but by the time they arrived, Kwizera’s mother and sister had died. The tragedy left him orphaned and marked a turning point in his life. Despite the loss, Kwizera says he is determined to rebuild. “It hurts deeply when I think about it, but life must continue. We have to rebuild ourselves and work towards a better future,” he said. Kwizera is now among 100 households living in the Kaniga and Rubaya model villages constructed under the Green Gicumbi Project, an initiative aimed at resettling families displaced by climate-related disasters and reducing exposure to environmental risks. The $32.8 million Green Gicumbi Project is one of several initiatives in Rwanda financed by the Green Climate Fund (GCF). However, the recent withdrawal of the United States from the GCF has raised questions about the potential implications for Rwanda and other climate-vulnerable countries. ALSO READ: Rwanda secures $39m to restore Congo–Nile Divide GCF-backed projects in Rwanda Established in 2010, the GCF is the main financial mechanism of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Paris Agreement. It supports developing countries to adapt to climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In Rwanda, the Fund has financed several major projects, including the $39.1 million Congo–Nile Divide Restoration Project, which focuses on climate resilience across 10 districts, and the $35 million Green City Kigali Project. Other investments include the $142 million Rwanda Green Investment Facility and a $49.6 million climate adaptation project in the Eastern Province. These initiatives underpin Rwanda’s ambition to pursue climate-resilient development while protecting communities most exposed to floods, landslides and prolonged droughts. GCF response to US withdrawal Following the US withdrawal, the GCF reaffirmed its commitment to supporting developing countries. “GCF reaffirms its commitment to fight climate change, which remains a fundamental threat to international development, security and long-term prosperity,” the Fund said in a statement. It said it would continue serving developing countries as the world’s climate fund, noting that it has approved $19.3 billion for 336 projects across 134 countries, all funded from existing resources. In 2025 alone, the Fund approved a record $3.26 billion in new projects. It also said it is working to reduce investment barriers and diversify funding sources through board-approved financing mechanisms. Experts urge diversification While the US exit has raised concerns, climate experts say it should prompt countries to rethink climate financing and reduce reliance on a narrow pool of donors. Abbias Maniragaba, a Rwandan environmental expert, said the impact could be mitigated through diversified funding sources and stronger domestic resource mobilisation. “Other developed countries are still contributing to climate finance,” Maniragaba said. ALSO READ: Land degradation costs Rwanda $70 million annually “Countries like China and others continue to support climate initiatives. As recipient countries, we must also use available resources wisely. Mobilising domestic finance, strengthening philanthropy and engaging the private sector can help address funding gaps.” Mohamed Adow, founder and director of Power Shift Africa, said the US withdrawal was not unexpected, noting that the country had already failed to honour earlier commitments. “The US had already reneged on its $4 billion pledge to the GCF even before exiting the UNFCCC,” Adow said. “Leaving the Paris Agreement and cancelling climate finance commitments means the US hasn’t been paying much. Failing to support climate-vulnerable nations will lead to more suffering for millions of people.” He added that non-state actors must now play a bigger role. “Cities, states and organisations must step up with even greater determination to plug the financing gap.” Adow said opposition to renewable energy would not halt the global transition. “The rest of the world will move towards a future powered by renewables, with or without American leadership. The climate movement is bigger than any one nation.” Reform and opportunity Martin Rokitzki, Managing Director of PlanAdapt, said the withdrawal of major powers from international climate institutions weakens global cooperation but can also create opportunities for reform. “When a strong member leaves, it affects decision-making and funding,” Rokitzki said. ALSO READ: Who will fund Rwanda’s $12bn climate action plan? “But disruption can also be a catalyst for innovation. It creates space to rethink how these institutions work and to show that cooperation does not depend on one country alone.” He stressed the importance of regional cooperation, reduced dependence on external funding, and stronger domestic capacity built on data, accountability and results-based governance. Christian Muragijimana, a climate change adaptation analyst, echoed these views, calling for greater investment in local expertise. “We must think globally, but act locally—by investing in data, accountability and homegrown expertise to drive climate adaptation,” Muragijimana said. He added that Africa must prioritise adaptation, given that it contributes least to global emissions but suffers disproportionately from climate impacts. What was the US contribution? In February 2025, former US President Donald Trump cancelled $4 billion in outstanding pledges previously committed to the GCF under Democratic administrations, making the US the first country to rescind a pledge to the Fund. As a result, the formal withdrawal was widely anticipated. Experts say the move means the US will no longer influence how climate finance is allocated, while increasing pressure on other donors at a time when many countries are scaling back overseas development assistance. “These institutions will have to rethink their financial models and reduce reliance on external funding,” said Clemence Landers, a senior policy fellow at the Center for Global Development. “That will be a major challenge.” GCF funding outlook Since 2015, the GCF has approved more than $19 billion for over 300 projects, mobilising more than $59 billion in co-financing. Its investments support emissions reduction, disaster early-warning systems, climate-smart agriculture and ecosystem protection. Under its ‘50by30’ vision, the Fund aims to manage a $50 billion portfolio by 2030, with annual programming expected to reach $8–9 billion by then and up to $15 billion by 2035. Since 2023, the Fund has implemented reforms to improve efficiency, decentralise operations and bring services closer to countries through a regional delivery model. “GCF is committed to doing things differently to better serve countries and respond to the urgent climate challenge,” the Fund said. Beyond the GCF, the US has withdrawn from several climate-related bodies, including the UNFCCC, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, the International Renewable Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. UNFCCC Executive Secretary Simon Stiell warned that stepping back from climate cooperation would ultimately harm the US itself. “As wildfires, floods, mega-storms and droughts worsen, turning away from climate leadership will damage the US economy, jobs and living standards,” he said, adding that the door remains open for the US to rejoin global climate efforts in the future.

News

What US withdrawal from green climate fund means for Rwanda