CFP_01 Community Consultations - Q&A

Every question from the CFP1 consultation week, 20 to 24 July 2026, with the Trust’s answers · Published under the Trust’s equality-of-information commitment · www.vicctf.org

CFP_01 Community Consultations - Q&A

Every question from the CFP1 consultation week, 20 to 24 July 2026, with the Trust’s answers · Published under the Trust’s equality-of-information commitment · www.vicctf.org

Q&A

Please see terms & acronymns used throughout the Q&A session

Glossary

The VICCTF, what it funds and How much is available for Grants in 2026.

What is the current value of the Fund?

What is the source of funding for the Trust: is it only the environmental levy?

Where does the other 60% of the tourist fee (levy) go?

How much of the disbursement goes to administration expenses?

Will there be a cap for external spend and expenditure on projects?

How much money is available for each Call, and how many tiers can be supported each application season?

What are the funding limitations each year, for example how many marine projects and how many agriculture projects in each Call?

Why does the Fund not allocate funding to the myriad of climate-related challenges that Government has not been able to address?

Can we access funding through the UK, seeing that we are a territory?

Is the amount (or the Fund) affected by the ODA rule?

How is the money dispersed: through central government or through the Climate Fund?

Please explain the Windows: W1 Grant, W2 Reimbursable Grant, W3 Loan, W4 Guarantees, W5 Trust Operations.

W2 Reimbursable Grant: is this not the same as a no-interest loan?

Please provide and explain the tier levels.

Are tiers based on the total for the project or the size of the business?

Tier status appears tied only to fiduciary standards as opposed to the impact of the work being financed. Can this be addressed?

Can the Fund be used to start a business, or only to solve a problem?

What about start-ups?

What level of track record is typically expected for a private entity to be eligible? Would a start-up with a high-impact proposal and a qualified management team be considered? Is the track record of the legal entity, the management team, or both evaluated?

Funding in the BVI is relatively new: what efforts count toward building a track record?

Are DBAs (“doing business as”) included (considered private-sector businesses)?

Can a business apply for funding for a not-for-profit project that it hopes will benefit the BVI community and environment?

Private sector cannot access this window directly? How is support expected to trickle down to private-sector stakeholders?

If I was awarded a grant before from another entity, can I qualify for your grant?

Is this for Belongers only?

Are the projects only for the BVI, or can anyone anywhere access the funds?

Do you fund research projects?

Can NGOs access grants to work on community-based projects?

What if an individual wants funding for a project or study relating to the preservation of the BVI environment: can they apply?

Farmers operate as single-farmer operators: will individuals be considered in this regard, not only cooperatives?

Should individuals have access by criteria, for example known project coordinators in climate-related projects and initiatives?

Can “youth” be considered as a “community”?

Will a study of ecosystems be considered a community project? Will an education project in the form of a film be considered?

From a mental health perspective, what can a possible acceptable grant project be?

Can funding be accessed for the development of pathways of services and programmes for persons with dementia?

Is it only public schools (that can access support)?

Could the grant money be used for partnerships with farmers to use their land?

If land cannot be purchased using the grant, how could project initiatives that are farming or planting based be started?

Is there support for female-group projects?

Can joint proposals be submitted, for example two NGOs on one project?

What happens to multi-partner proposals: does there need to be one lead partner?

How does the BVI define community resilience?

Applying, process, timeline, and support

Where do I find the application, and is there an application deadline?

What is the cadence for grant opportunities on an ongoing basis?

Can you apply every Call with new projects, or once funded are other organisations and projects prioritized?

How long is the application review process, and how long should projects be?

What is the expected timeline for reviewing and approving grant applications and disbursing grants?

How soon will the funds be available after applying for funding?

How long is given to use the funds?

Who is responsible for approving these projects, and how will you justify a project for approval?

What criteria is the Trust focussing on for disbursement? What criteria do the global agencies favour in order for the Fund to receive speedy accreditation?

As the Trust deals with climate change, how will it decide between projects dealing with mitigation, rehabilitation, or development, which address climate change in different manners in terms of sustainability?

How can you verify or confirm the eligibility of an organisation receiving the funding?

What are the reporting requirements, and how often does the Trust Fund circulate reports to the public?

Please explain [Partnership] Section B9 (Reporting) on the application form.

What about reporting on and projecting outcomes and impacts? Grants for educational programmes, research projects and similar are harder to measure numerically.

Is there a follow-up process once funds have been disbursed?

Is there follow-up on how the monies are used: enforcement and staying power?

Will all projects be published, and what details will be shared?

Will the CCTF engage or survey the public after a project or programme is awarded funding?

Does the application portal provide a copy for the applicant to keep for review?

When is the AI Assistant available?

What is the main reason for using AI for writing a report? Does it not defeat the purpose of credibility and transparency?

AI has an enormous negative impact on the environment and freshwater: should its use be reconsidered for a fund focused on climate change?

Do you have to be a partner to apply? What does being a partner mean?

How do you work on a long-term partnership with the Trust?

How does the Trust deal with confidentiality and protecting proprietary information and property?

What assistance is available, and how do you get consultation on project development?

Will we receive help and guidance from people who have already been through the grant process?

Can you assist a prospective organization to become organized?

Are you saying that the Trust can help an entity be grant-ready?

How does one access the support to bring an aspiring entity up to standard?

Should the Trust provide training to individuals, businesses and entities on how to access the Fund?

Governance, accountability, and policy

Can you describe the Trust’s alignment with the goals of Government and statutory bodies? Will you consult Government before you award funding?

Interdepartmental collaboration and cohesion is a concern: how will you ensure Government and statutory-body collaboration?

What is government involvement?

How resilient is the Trust against government pressure, and how will it combat the pressure of very powerful private-sector interests whose only motive is profit?

Concern that upcoming Virgin Islands’ general elections may disrupt progress: what assurance can the public be given that political change in office will not affect CCTF continuity?

Why is the Trust not an independent entity? Independence should be embedded into legislation to prevent political changes.

The Act passed in 2015 and the first Call opens the week of 17 August 2026: it has been a long time, and Government is involved. How do we have confidence that safeguards are adopted, and what is there to protect the integrity of the Board?

Where are the checks and balances?

What international regulations and standards apply?

With these types of structures, is there any process that monitors the Fund itself? Is it self-governing or internationally governed?

Who ensures that the Trust is compliant?

What is the accreditation process and its steps? Who keeps the Board in line: audits, yearly, and so on?

In terms of the accreditation process, in the Business Plan do we reach these standards?

Accreditation is still a fairly new term in the BVI and is not fully understood: it needs to be fully explained.

Can you have dual roles with the Board, for example be a donor versus a grantee or bidder?

There should be a process to sue or hold organisations accountable in cases of mismanagement of funds. What is the enforcement mechanism?

What are the Trust Fund’s key performance indicators for highest impact? How does the Trust measure successful impact, with an example?

What are the priority areas for the Board? Does a project need to be linked to the NSD Plan? Should projects be focused on disaster resilience, sustainable tourism, environmental conservation, or food security?

Can the first Call for Proposals be aligned with the National Priorities?

Why is the Virgin Islands not signed on to the UNFCCC framework, and how does our absence impact our access to funding?

Describe the history of the Fund from the approval of the Act in 2015 to 2026. Can you make the Act available for viewing online?

Is there a plan for a climate change education programme and public messaging?

Sargassum fouls the water supply in some communities. Water is a basic human right and sargassum should be a priority item. Who decides the priorities?

How far along is the development of the desalination plants, especially in these drought periods?

And everything else you told us

Your recommendations

Your priorities

Your words on community resilience

Your project ideas and partnerships

The Fund currently holds just over USD 6 million. This comprises the first disbursement from the Environmental Protection and Tourism Investment Fund (EPTIF) Levy, received in June 2025, together with subsequent levy receipts and interest. The current figure is published on the Trust website and will be updated in the Trust’s public reports.

No. The levy is the Trust’s core, recurring source: 40 per cent of the USD 10 Environmental Protection and Tourism Investment Fund (EPTIF) Levy collected at the ports. In addition, the Act empowers the Trust to receive and raise funds from other sources, including donations, philanthropy, bilateral and development partners, and private-sector contributions, and to act as a conduit for funds destined for climate action in the Virgin Islands. Growing the Fund well beyond the levy is a legal mandate, not just an ambition. To date, however, the Trust has received funds from the levy.

The Trust receives 40 per cent of the levy (USD 4 of every USD 10). The remaining 60 per cent is retained by the Government of the Virgin Islands under the Environmental Protection and Tourism Investment Fund (EPTIF) levy legislation (2017) for the other purposes prescribed under that Act, including disbursements to the National Parks Trust and appropriate Tourism authority. Questions on specific application of the 60% share should be directed to the Government and ultimate recipients; the Trust (VICCTF) reports publicly on its own 40 per cent share.

The Act caps the Trust’s operating costs: no more than 20 per cent of the budget in the first year of operations and no more than 15 per cent thereafter. Operations include salaries, systems, and the cost of running the Calls. The cap is set in the Virgin Islands Climate Change Trust Fund Act (no. 12 of 2015), which is a public document, and compliance is reported in the Trust’s audited financial statements.

Yes. All spending is guided by the approved Business Plan and Budget. Every grant operates within its budget and tier caps, and project budgets are reviewed line by line for value for money before award. Project management and administrative lines within a grant budget are limited under the Call Guidelines. “The Trust shall principally finance projects associated with the incremental costs of addressing climate change in order to minimise the threats and impacts of climate change” and “The Trust shall not be used to support operational costs … if such could be reasonably expected to be covered under normal day to day business costs” [Clause 35(2&3) of the Act]. The exact budget rules for this Call are published in the CFP Guidelines with the application pack.

The first Call makes USD 1 million available for Community Resilience initiatives: USD 900,000 for grant projects and USD 100,000 for grant capacity building and education through the Partnership. Individual grants are expected under four (4) ranging from about USD 25,000 to USD 100,000 with a mix of sizes awarded based on quality, capacity and priority. The grants window is expected to be replenished annually by the levy, so this first Call is the first of many.

There are no fixed quotas per sector. The Board sets the scope and priorities of each Call, and a prioritization list for this Call, reflecting the approved Climate Change Policy and taking into account insights from stakeholder consultations (sargassum, water, renewable energy, circular economy and more), which will be published with the Call documents. Within that scope, projects compete on the published criteria, not against sector ceilings.

Until now the Trust has not been in a position to deploy funds. By law nothing can be distributed without a five-year Business Plan approved by the Board and the Minister responsible for Climate Change, and the Secretariat only opened in February 2026 after the first levy disbursement arrived in June 2025. Those legal requirements are now being completed, and the first Call is precisely the beginning of allocating funding to the climate challenges communities face. The consultations this week exist so that those challenges, in your words, shape the priorities.

Yes, UK and Overseas Territory (OT) channels are among the sources the Trust actively pursues, including UK Government programmes and OT-focused facilities, alongside bilateral partners, philanthropy (including a planned US charitable channel), innovative and blended green/blue financing mechanisms, and private-sector contributions. What the Virgin Islands cannot access, because it is a UK Overseas Territory and not a party to the UN climate convention in its own right, are the global funds reserved for parties, such as the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility and the Adaptation Fund. The Trust exists to bridge exactly that gap, and it deliberately builds its systems to those funds’ standards so that the sources that are open to us can invest with confidence.

The ODA rule affects some traditional aid: as a high-income territory the Virgin Islands is not eligible for most Official Development Assistance (ODA). This does not affect the levy, which is the Trust’s own recurring source, nor philanthropy, private-sector funding, or UK and Overseas Territory programmes. The Trust’s design responds directly to this reality: it grows resources from the sources that remain open rather than depending on aid flows the Territory cannot access.

The Trust disburses directly to its partners under signed grant agreements and other modalities: funds do not pass through central government. Government agencies and statutory bodies can also access support, through cooperation agreements rather than the open Call, and the Act ordinarily caps all Government access combined at no more than 50 per cent of annual disbursements, monitored continuously by the CEO.

The Act provides for grants, loans and other financial instruments, and the Trust is structuring these as six Windows in its Business Plan: W1 Grants (non-repayable), W2 Reimbursable Grants (recovered over time without interest from a defined revenue stream), W3 Revolving Loans, W4 Guarantees (the Climate Finance Guarantee Facility, which unlocks bank lending without the Trust paying out unless needed), W5 Operations and Administration, and W6 a contingency reserve. The Business Plan structuring has been approved by the Board so far and goes to the Minister (with responsibility for Climate Change) for final approval. This first Call operates under the grants window only (W1); the other Windows will open as they are finalised, and relevant partners will be sensitised ahead of each.

They are close cousins, and the honest answer is that a reimbursable grant behaves like an interest-free loan in one respect: only the principal is repaid, and it is repaid as savings or/and revenue is/are realised from the project. The differences matter, though. A reimbursable grant is issued under the grant framework, with no collateral, no interest, and recovery only from a defined revenue or savings stream the project itself generates: if the project produces the revenue, it repays; the terms are set grant-style rather than bank-style. It is designed for entities that can sustain repayment but should not carry loan risk. Full terms will be published when that Window opens.

The tiers match the size of grant to the demonstrated capacity of the organisation, so that a small community group is not asked to carry the compliance load of a large agency. Indicatively:
Tier 1 (up to about USD 25,000) for community organisations and small NGOs;
Tier 2 (about USD 25,000 to 50,000) for registered NGOs and community groups with defined milestones;
Tier 3 (about USD 25,000 to 75,000) for established organisations able to manage multi-year work; and
Tier 4 (about USD 75,000 to 100,000 and above), exceptional, for strategic projects with demonstrated co-financing.
The Board will soon confirm the exact caps with the Call, and the Partnership registration will tell you which tier you are in and what would move you up.

Primarily the capacity of the organisation. Your tier reflects your governance, financial management, track record and systems, and it sets the maximum grant you can hold. Your project then has to fit within that cap. As your organisation strengthens, including through the capacity-building grants, you graduate to higher tiers and larger projects.

That is correct, and it is deliberate: the tier protects both the partner and the Fund by matching money to fiduciary capacity. Impact is assessed separately, in the evaluation itself, where every project is scored against published criteria that include social, environmental and economic impact. So a Tier 1 community project with high impact scores highly on impact; the tier only sets how much money the organisation can responsibly access at this stage.

The grants window funds climate initiatives that solve a problem or leverage an opportunity to the benefit of the community. In all, four windows (W1-4) are being opened to support climate change related business ideas. Through W1b, the capacity-building allocation can help a new or informal entity become organized and grant-ready. A business can hold a grant under W1a for a project that serves the community (see the private-sector questions below). And the coming reimbursable grant (W2), loan (W3) and guarantee (W4) Windows are being structured precisely for revenue-generating climate investments. So: solve a community climate problem with the grant; build the enterprise through the Windows designed for enterprise.

Start-ups are welcome to register for the Partnership and to apply. A new entity will typically enter at Tier 1, and the capacity-building grants exist to help start-ups put registration, governance and financial systems in place. Where a start-up brings a high-impact proposal and a qualified team but little formal history, the evaluation can consider evidenced informal track record, and the Trust can start the relationship with a partnership grant and grow from there.

Track record can be formal or informal, but it must be evidenced. Formal evidence is prior contracts and completed projects; informal evidence includes references from communities or beneficiaries of work you have done. The assessment looks at both the legal entity and its management team: a young entity with an experienced, qualified team is a real candidate, typically starting at a lower tier or with a capacity-building grant to establish its documented record. This consultation feedback is being carved into the rules of the Call.

Things that count include: projects delivered with any funder, however small; community initiatives you can evidence with photos, records or press; references from beneficiaries, community leaders or partner organisations; the professional history of your team; and sound records of your own operations (minutes, accounts, receipts). The Trust’s reporting system is deliberately built so that your first grant, however small, generates a documented track record you can use with us and with other funders.

Yes. A registered business, including a sole trader operating under a registered business name (DBA), is private sector and is eligible, provided it can enter into a contract with the Trust as an entity. What the Trust cannot do is contract with a private individual who has no registered entity; the capacity-building support can help with formalisation where needed.

Yes. A business may apply for a project that is not-for-profit in character where the project delivers climate benefit to the community. Guidance given during the consultations goes further: a private-sector entity may access grants on behalf of the community. The application must show clearly how the community benefits and how the business’s role serves that benefit rather than private gain; the incremental-cost rule means the grant cannot pay for costs the business would incur anyway.

The private sector can access this Call directly: all registered entities ordinarily resident in the Territory are eligible under section 25 of the Act, and that includes private enterprise and community-based businesses. Where the project is carried by another entity, private-sector stakeholders also benefit as suppliers, contractors and technology providers to funded projects, and the coming reimbursable grant, loan and guarantee Windows are designed specifically around private-sector participation. If the private sector is in one of the smaller, sister islands where it is one of the only entity on the ground to support recovery, then such access is encouraged.

Yes. A grant from another funder does not disqualify you; a well-managed prior grant is exactly the kind of track record that strengthens your application. You must disclose current and past funding in the application, and co-financing is welcomed and encouraged, but the same activity cannot be funded twice (no double-funding of the same costs).

No. Eligibility follows the Act: any entity ordinarily resident in the Virgin Islands may apply. It is the entity’s residence and registration in the Territory that matters, not the Belonger status of its members.

The funds are for climate action in the Virgin Islands, delivered by entities ordinarily resident in the Territory. An overseas organisation cannot apply directly; it can participate by partnering with or supporting a resident entity, and international donors who wish to contribute to the Fund are warmly invited to engage with the Trust directly.

Yes. Climate research, education, awareness and capacity building appear on the eligible activities list, subject to the scope the Board confirms for each Call. Research proposals should show how the findings serve the community and the Territory’s climate response, and reporting for research grants is adapted to evidence outputs sensibly (see the reporting questions below).

Yes, absolutely. NGOs and community-based organisations working on community projects are at the heart of this Call. Community resilience is its theme, and the tiers, templates, briefings and capacity-building grants are designed to make access practical for organisations of every size.

The Trust cannot award a grant directly to an individual; the Act requires an entity that can hold a contract. An individual with a strong environmental project has three routes: partner with an existing registered organisation that carries the project; form or register an entity (the capacity-building allocation can help with exactly this); or bring the idea into the Partnership so the Trust can help match it with a capable partner. Good ideas will not be lost for want of paperwork: register the idea with us.

The single-operator reality of Virgin Islands farming was heard clearly, and it is recorded for the Board as the Call rules are finalised. Under the Act the Trust contracts with entities, so an individual farmer would participate as a registered sole-trader business, through a cooperative or association, or via a partnering entity; the capacity-building grants can help farmers formalise quickly and cheaply. The design intent is that no working farmer entity is excluded merely for operating alone.

Recorded and welcomed as design input. The published route remains entity-based, but criteria-based access for demonstrably experienced individuals, such as known coordinators of climate-related projects, is exactly the kind of evidenced informal track record the evaluation can recognise when such persons apply through or as registered entities.

Yes. Communities include communities of interest as well as of place: youth groups, schools, faith communities, service clubs and producer groups all count. A youth organisation (registered, or hosted by a registered entity such as a school or church) can be an applicant, and projects serving young people score as community benefit.

Both can qualify if they meet the two tests every project faces: it must be a climate change project, and it must benefit the community. An ecosystem study qualifies as climate research where its findings serve community resilience (for example informing protection of the reefs and mangroves that shield settlements). An educational film qualifies under climate education and awareness where it reaches and serves Virgin Islands audiences. The Call Guidelines will confirm the scope for this first Call.

Mental health and climate meet in real ways, and projects can be framed to both tests. Examples: psychosocial preparedness and post-disaster support programmes for communities; climate-proofing facilities that serve mental health clients (cooling, resilient power, water); heat-stress awareness for vulnerable groups; and community programmes that build the social connection that carries people through disasters. Persons with special needs receive priority consideration in evaluation under the Act’s equity-of-access principle.

Yes, this can be framed within the Call. Climate adaptation for healthcare, daycares and elderly care is on the eligible activities list, and persons with special needs receive priority consideration. Services and pathways for persons with dementia can qualify where the project shows its climate dimension, for example heat protection, resilient power and water for care settings, and preparedness planning for vulnerable clients during storms. The Trust would welcome this application and can provide technical assistance to frame it.

No. Adaptation for schools of all kinds, alongside churches, community centres, healthcare and elderly care facilities, is eligible. Public and private schools alike participate as, or through, registered entities. assistance to frame it.

Yes. A project can operate on land made available through a partnership with the landowner, evidenced by a lease, licence or written agreement covering at least the life of the project. Partnering with farmers to use their land for climate-smart agriculture is a natural fit for this Call.

Grant funds cannot be used to purchase land. Farming and planting projects start instead from secured access: a lease, family land agreement, licence from Government, or partnership with a landowner (see response to Q-38), documented in the application. The budget then funds what makes the land productive and resilient: greenhouses, irrigation, rainwater harvesting, soil restoration, seedlings, training, and so on.

Yes. Women and women-headed households are named in the Act’s equity-of-access principle and receive priority consideration in evaluation and outreach. Female-led groups and projects serving women are encouraged to apply, and gender-responsive design strengthens any application.

Yes. Joint proposals are welcome, including two NGOs on one project. One entity signs as the lead applicant, holds the contract and the accountability, and the partners’ roles are set out in the proposal and in a simple partnership or joint venture agreement between them. Based on risk assessment, the Trust may require joint or several liability in the final terms of the grant agreement.

Yes, one lead partner is required. The Trust contracts with a single accountable entity; co-partners deliver under written arrangements with the lead. Choose as lead the entity with the strongest systems for the tier you are applying in, and describe every partner’s capacity and role clearly.

For this Call, a community-resilient Virgin Islands is one whose communities can anticipate, withstand, respond to and recover from climate impacts - hurricanes, heat, drought, sargassum and coastal change, etc - without being set back from its pre-impact state. Participants this week said it beautifully, and we adopt their words into the record: a VI that does not panic at an incoming storm because it is secure behind its mangrove-fortified coastlines; everyone working together to make a positive impact; and standing strong through crisis in ways that do not generate more harm than good. Your project qualifies when it strengthens that capacity in a real community.

The application pack, including the form and Guidelines, will be published on www.vicctf.org when the Call opens, and every registered consultation attendee and Partnership member will be sent the link directly by email and WhatsApp. The Call is expected to open in late August or early September and close at the end of September; the exact dates and the deadline will be stated in the Call notice. Applications are submitted digitally; late submissions cannot be accepted.

This is the first Call of many, not a one-off. The grants window is expected to be replenished every year by the levy, so partners should expect a recurring cycle of Calls, with the cadence confirmed by the Board as the first cycle completes. Between Calls, the Partnership remains open continuously: register once and you are positioned for every future opportunity.

You can apply to every Call. Previously funded organisations are not automatically prioritized; each Call is evaluated on the published criteria. A well-delivered earlier grant strengthens your track record, and the Board also has regard to spreading opportunity across communities and sectors when shaping each Call.

For this Call: applications close at the end of September, the Review Committee evaluates in October, and the Board’s first award decisions are targeted for announcement before the UNFCCC COP31 in November. Project duration is set in the Call Guidelines; for this first Call most Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects are expected to run up to about twelve months, with completion dates stated in each grant agreement.

Under normal operation the full cycle from close of applications to disbursement should take no more than about four months. For this first Call the timetable is: open late August or early September, close end September, evaluation in October, initial awards and first disbursements targeted before UNFCCC COP31 in November, with the remainder completing into early 2027. The timeline is ambitious deliberately, to demonstrate to international funders at COP31 that the Virgin Islands can run a credible process.

After award, the contracting process is triggered; once your agreement is signed, the first disbursement follows the schedule in your contract. For Partnership members whose registration information is already complete, the aim is to generate contracts within about 48 to 72 hours of approval, which is one more reason to register early. The first disbursements under this Call are targeted for late October or early November, before UNFCCC COP31.

Your grant agreement states your project period and a completion date, taking into consideration the workplan you propose. Funds are used within that period; where genuine circumstances require more time, a no-cost extension can be requested and approved with cause. Unspent funds at closure are returned.

The Review Committee, a panel of technical experts constituted under the Act, evaluates every application against the published criteria and records a scored recommendation. The Board makes the decision: approve, approve with changes, defer, or decline. Every decision is justified by the published criteria and the Committee’s recorded assessment, and unsuccessful applicants receive feedback explaining the outcome and how to strengthen a future application.

The evaluation criteria and their weights are published with the Call before it opens, so every applicant sees exactly how proposals are scored. They cover the two fundamental tests (a climate change project that benefits a community) plus feasibility, value for money, organisational capacity, environmental and social practice, sustainability, innovation and inclusion. On accreditation: the standards international funds look for are strong fiduciary management, environmental and social safeguards, and transparency, and the Trust is deliberately building its systems to those standards from day one, which is why the process may feel thorough even at small grant sizes.

The scope of climate action is set by the Virgin Islands Climate Change Policy, and each Call defines its focus within it. This first Call is themed community resilience, which is principally adaptation and resilience, with mitigation co-benefits (such as solar with storage) welcomed. Projects are compared on the published criteria, including impact, rather than on which category label they carry; what matters is a clear climate rationale and real community benefit.

Through documented screening. Every application passes an eligibility verification: proof of registration and ordinary residence in the Territory, governance documents, bank account or fiscal-sponsor arrangement, and due-diligence checks including anti-money-laundering screening. Nothing is taken on word of mouth; the evidence is filed, and the screening outcome is recorded for every application.

Grantees report at least quarterly, on the Trust’s simple template, within 30 days of each quarter end, with receipts and photographs as evidence. The Trust itself reports up and out: annual reports and quarterly reports to Government, audited financial statements, and public reporting on the website, including the published list of awards. The consultation commitment stands: the Trust’s reports to the public will be accessible on www.vicctf.org.

Section B9 of the partnership application form is where you commit to the reporting rules of the grant: quarterly reporting on the template within 30 days of quarter end, evidence-based (receipts and photos), with any permits your project needs listed. It is also where the AI Reporting Assistant helps most: photograph each receipt as you spend, answer five plain questions near quarter end, and the Assistant drafts the report for your review and sign-off. Nothing is submitted until you confirm it.

A fair point, and the templates are built for it. Every project reports the simple numbers it does have (people reached, sessions held, items installed) plus evidence that does not need to be numeric: photographs, attendance records, participant feedback, and a short honest narrative. For education and research grants, outputs like curricula, reports and screenings are themselves the evidence. You will not be asked to invent numbers; you will be asked to keep evidence, and the reporting system feeds or turns that evidence into the report.

Yes. After disbursement the Trust stays engaged: quarterly reports are reviewed, spot checks and site visits are made, help is dispatched when a project signals trouble, and every project ends with closure: a final report, a lessons-learned exercise, and yes, a small budget line for a closing event to show the community what was done.

Yes, and with teeth. Use of funds is verified against receipts every quarter; misuse triggers a graduated response set out in the grant agreement: suspension of disbursements, recovery of funds, debarment from future Calls, publication of the outcome, and referral to the authorities where warranted. The staying power is structural: the levy replenishes the Fund annually, so the Trust, and its enforcement of standards, is permanent.

Yes. Transparency is a statutory principle, so every award is published: grantee name, project title, purpose, amount, and location, with progress reflected in the Trust’s public reporting and impact map. What is not published is applicants’ confidential and proprietary detail (see the confidentiality answer), and unsuccessful applications are not publicly named.

Yes. Community feedback is part of monitoring and closure: beneficiary and community input is gathered during and after implementation, a lessons-learned exercise closes every project, and the Trust will survey partners and communities as the first cycle completes so that the second Call is built on what the first one teaches.

Yes. You keep your own copy at every step: the digital submission gives you a confirmation and your submitted application remains accessible to you. Best practice (which the Handbook teaches) is to finalise your draft a couple of days early, keep your working copy, and upload on time. Nothing you submit disappears from your reach.

It is being built now, and being trained on the very questions collected this week (over one hundred and counting), so it answers the way Virgin Islanders actually ask. It will be made available to registered Partnership members alongside the Call, with island-specific knowledge, and it will keep improving as more questions come in. Until then, the standing Q&A channel and the Trust team answer directly.

The AI does not decide anything and does not replace the evidence; it reduces paperwork. Your notes, receipts and photographs remain the facts; the Assistant reads them, drafts your report, and flags gaps, and nothing is submitted until you review and confirm it. On the Trust’s side, humans decide and sign everything: the Review Committee evaluates supported by technical experts, the Board decides, and AI-assisted documents are disclosed as such. Credibility rests on evidence and human accountability; the AI just makes the honest path the easy path.

A fair challenge, honestly answered: AI has a real energy and water footprint, and the Trust weighs it. The uses chosen are narrow and purposeful, cutting paperwork, travel and printing for hundreds of small partners, rather than open-ended use, and the tools run on shared infrastructure rather than Trust-built computing. Hence, the Trust projects a net positive overall environmental impact from the process. The Trust records this concern, will keep its AI use proportionate to demonstrated benefit, and welcomes continued scrutiny; that is what accountability means.

No, being a partner is not a precondition for applying to this Call, but it is strongly encouraged and it is required before contracting. A partner is an entity that has completed the one-time Partnership Alliance registration: your organisational information is captured once, your tier and gaps identified, and from there you can apply to Calls, access the USD 100,000 capacity-building support, receive the tools and updates, and have contracts generated in as little as 48 to 72 hours after approval. Register once; use it for everything.

The Partnership is the long-term relationship. You register once; the Trust then works with you across cycles: capacity grants to close your gaps, tier graduation as your systems strengthen, recurring annual Calls funded by the levy, tools and training (including Smartsheet working sessions), and positioning support so you can also win funding from other sources. Bt law, the Trust cannot implement from its own funds; its partners are its delivery arm, so building you up is part of its core business.

Application contents are held in confidence. Reviewers and staff handle applications under conflict-of-interest declarations and confidentiality undertakings; proprietary information and intellectual property in proposals is not shared beyond the evaluation; and publication after award is limited to the summary details listed in the transparency answer. If your proposal contains commercially sensitive material, flag it, and raise any specific concern with the Trust before submitting.

Free and layered. Before and during the Call: published templates (proposal, budget), the technologies and project-ideas compendium, at least one applicant briefing per inhabited island, and a standing Q&A channel where every answer of general application is published so all applicants have identical information. During drafting: a named application-help contact and AI drafting tools. All technical assistance from the Trust is free; no one should pay anyone for access to the Trust.

Over time, yes, and by design. This is the first Call, so the first cohort of grantees will become the peer experience for everyone after them: the Trust will capture their lessons, invite them into briefings, and build peer exchange into the Partnership. For this Call, the Trust team, the templates, the briefings and the AI tools carry that role.

Yes. That is exactly what the USD 100,000 capacity-building allocation is for: helping a prospective organisation get registered, put a board or executive and minutes in place, set up financial management, document its track record, and adopt a basic code of conduct. The Partnership registration identifies your gaps, and the grant pays for help to close them.

Yes. Grant-readiness support is a core function: the Partnership registration assesses where you are, the capacity grants fund the fixes, the templates and briefings teach the process, and the tier system means you start at the level you can manage today and grow. The Trust succeeds only if its partners succeed; it cannot spend the funds itself.

Register for the Partnership as soon as the link is circulated (it goes to every registered consultation attendee by email and WhatsApp). The registration is deliberately detailed so you complete it once; it identifies your gaps, and you can then apply for capacity-building support against those gaps, even while separately applying to the Call. An entity in the process of registering as an NPO, like the VI Bees Foundation example raised this week, is precisely the intended user.

Yes, training is part of the plan: working sessions on Smartsheet and the application process, briefings on every inhabited island during the Call window, the Grantee Handbook in plain local language, explanatory videos, and the AI assistant for on-demand answers. The commitment recorded this consultation week stands: the Trust will keep its materials simple and will explain its terms, including accreditation, in plain language.

The Trust is aligned with national direction and independent in its awards.

Alignment: it operates within the Virgin Islands Climate Change Policy, the National Energy Strategy, and related frameworks. Its five-year Business Plan is approved by the Minister with responsibility for Climate Change, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and it reports to Cabinet annually and quarterly.

Independence: individual funding decisions are made by the Board on the Review Committee’s recommendation against published criteria; Government is not consulted on individual awards before they are made. Government’s legitimate interests are protected structurally, through the Policy, the Business Plan approval, and public reporting, not through case-by-case sign-off. Additionally, Government entities and Statutory bodies are eligible to apply for funding.

Several mechanisms knit the Trust into the public system without compromising its independence: statutory officers serve on the Review Committee pool under the Act’s Schedule 3; cooperation agreements govern work with Government agencies and statutory bodies; the Board of Trustees includes two ex-officio members from Government; the Climate Change Committee connects policy; and funded projects requiring permits or agency cooperation identify those dependencies in the application so they are coordinated before award. Where a project needs an agency at the table, the Trust convenes it.

Government’s role is defined and bounded: Cabinet approves Board appointments after an open, advertised, merit-based selection; the Board includes two ex-officio government officials, the Minister approves the five-year Business Plan; the Trust reports to Cabinet; and Government entities may access support, capped by law at 50 per cent of annual disbursements combined. Government does not decide specific grant priorities or awards; the Board does. Government does not have a role in the day-to-day operations; this is run by the Secretariat as delegated and overseen by the Board.

The Trust’s resilience is structural, not personal.

Against political pressure: it is created by an Act of Parliament, its Board is appointed through open competition, award decisions follow published criteria with recorded scoring, conflicts of interest must be declared, and everything material is published.

Against monied interests: the same published criteria and transparency apply to every applicant, large or small; no project can be funded that damages the environment the Fund exists to protect; and the complaints channel lets anyone raise concerns confidentially.

Sunlight is the design principle.

The Trust is built to outlast election cycles. Its existence, mandate, Board appointment process, and funding (the levy) are all set in legislation that continues regardless of which administration holds office; its money sits in the Trust’s own accounts, not the Consolidated Fund; and its multi-year Business Plan and published pipeline give continuity of programme. Political change can change ministers; it does not change the Act, the levy, or signed grant agreements; and the Trust’s resilience has been tried and tested successfully against election cycles and political ambitions.

The Trust is an independent statutory body: created by its own Act, governed by its own Board, holding its own funds. It is accountable to the public through Government (reporting, Business Plan approval) but not run by Government. The suggestion that independence protections be strengthened in legislation is recorded and will be considered; meanwhile the operating protections above are already law.

Two answers were given in the room and both stand. On “why now”: the long gap was structural, the levy only reached the Trust in June 2025, and since then the pace has been deliberate and fast: secretariat opened, international launch, systems built, and a first Call within months, timed so the Territory can demonstrate a working process by COP in November. On integrity: the Board decides on the Review Committee’s scored recommendations against published criteria; conflicts of interest must be declared under the Act; audits are annual; awards are published; and the complaints channel is open to all. The ambition of the timeline is strategic, not political.

Layered ones: the Review Committee evaluates, the Board decides, and the CEO runs process-integrity checks between them; the Act caps Government access (50 per cent) and operating costs (20 then 15 per cent); internal and external audits are annual; reports go to Cabinet quarterly and annually; awards and criteria are published; and a grievance mechanism receives complaints confidentially. No single person, including the CEO, can move money alone: two-person rules apply at every money point.

The Trust deliberately builds to the standards used by the major international climate funds and their accredited entities: fiduciary standards (financial management, procurement, anti-money-laundering), environmental and social safeguards, gender and inclusion, and transparency and accountability frameworks. Meeting these standards is a strategic choice: it is the Trust’s brand, it disciplines its own operations, and it is what allows international partners to fund through us.

The Trust is nationally established and governed, and internationally benchmarked. Oversight is real and local: ministerial approval of the Business Plan, quarterly and annual reporting to Cabinet, annual internal and external audits, and public reporting. It is not governed by any international body; rather, it voluntarily holds itself to international standards so that international funders can trust it, and any donor agreement brings that donor’s own reporting requirements too.

A chain of them: the Board oversees management; the internal auditor ensures process integrity, the external auditor examines the accounts annually; the Minister approves the Business Plan; the Minister and Cabinet receive quarterly and annual reports; the public sees the published awards, reports and criteria; and partners and citizens can use the complaints channel. Compliance is nobody’s word of honour; it is documented, audited, and published.

Accreditation is the process by which an international fund certifies that an organisation meets its fiduciary, environmental and social, and transparency standards, allowing it to handle that fund’s money. The steps are: a gap assessment against the standards; putting policies, systems and track record in place; then a formal application and review by the fund. The Board is kept in line by the same architecture that accreditation tests: annual external audits, published criteria and awards, conflict-of-interest rules, and reporting to Cabinet. For the Virgin Islands the main value of accreditation is the brand, credibility, and internal discipline it certifies, and the Trust is building its systems to that bar from day one.

The Business Plan is expressly designed to those standards, and “reaching” them is a build in progress, honestly staged: the manuals, safeguards, reporting systems, audit arrangements and this first Call are each components of the standard being put in place and then evidenced through operation. The elements not yet in place are needed but not expected at this stage of operationalisation; the first grant cycle is itself part of building the demonstrable track record the standards require.

Agreed, and adopted as a standing commitment. The Trust will explain accreditation and every other term in plain language: the Grantee Handbook is written in the local way of saying things, a glossary will accompany the published Q&A, presentation materials will stay simple, and the answer to the accreditation question above is written to be the plain-language explanation requested. Where anything remains unclear, ask through the Q&A channel and the published answer will serve everyone.

Dual roles are possible and managed by disclosure. Under the Act, anyone in the decision chain must declare interests; a Board or Review Committee member with any connection to an application is recused from evaluating or deciding it. A donor to the Fund gains no influence over awards: donations and decisions run on separate tracks, and an entity may be both a donor and, through the open process, an applicant, judged on the same published criteria as everyone else.

It exists. Every grant agreement is a binding contract under Virgin Islands law with escalating remedies for mismanagement: suspension of disbursements, demand for repayment, debarment from future funding, publication of the outcome, and referral to the relevant authorities, including legal action to recover funds where warranted. The quarterly evidence-based reporting is designed to catch trouble early, when it can still be fixed rather than punished.

At the fund level, the Business Plan carries a Results Framework with three indicator families: fund health (resources raised, levy received, costs within the caps), programme delivery (calls run, grants awarded and completed, funds deployed, communities and people reached), and institutional development (systems, standards and partnership growth). At the project level, every proposal defines its own indicators, and a worked example will be published with the Call templates: for instance, a rainwater harvesting project reporting tanks installed, households served, storage litres added, and continuity of supply through the dry season.

The Board’s theme for this first Call is community resilience, and the prioritization list for the Call, shaped directly by this week’s consultations (with sargassum, water, renewable energy, circular economy and waste, ecosystems, food security among the strongest voices), will be published with the Call documents. Projects must fall within the scope of the Virgin Islands Climate Change Policy; alignment with the National Sustainable Development (NSD) Plan strengthens a proposal, but the binding tests are the published criteria of the Call.

Yes, and this was confirmed in the room: the Virgin Islands has a National Climate Change Policy, the Trust must operate within it, and the first Call’s priorities are being finalised on the basis of these consultations precisely so that the Call reflects national and community priorities together.

Because the Virgin Islands is a United Kingdom Overseas Territory, it is not a sovereign state and cannot be a party to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in its own right; the UK is the party. The consequence is real: the global funds established under the Convention and the Paris Agreement (the Green Climate Fund, the Global Environment Facility, the Adaptation Fund, the Loss and Damage Fund) are open to parties, so the Territory cannot access them directly. That is exactly why the Trust exists: to bridge that gap with the levy and with the sources that are open to us, including UK and Overseas Territory programmes, bilateral partnerships, philanthropy, the private sector, and innovative financing mechanisms.

The Climate Change Policy belongs to Government, and updating it is Government’s process; the Trust operates within it and will formally convey this consultation’s recommendation that any updated version go out for public comment. You may also reach out directly to the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change.

On waste: climate action as practiced in the Territory includes waste-related resilience (circular economy, organics diversion, methane and fire reduction), these featured strongly in this week’s feedback, and the Call’s prioritization list will take that into consideration.

Yes, on two tracks. The Trust’s own public education and messaging is beginning with these consultations, the published Q&A, explanatory videos, the technologies compendium and the website, and will continue as a standing programme. And climate education and awareness projects by partners are themselves eligible for grant funding under this Call, so schools, educators and communicators are invited to apply.

The Board decides each Call’s priorities, and it decides them informed by exactly this input. Sargassum, and its impact on water, was among the loudest messages of the week, from every island, and this will be considered in deciding the published prioritization list for this Call. Where sargassum affects water supply, projects addressing it meet both tests of the Call, climate and community, squarely.

Territory-scale desalination is the remit of Government and the water utility, and the Trust will pass this question to the responsible agency for attention. What the Trust can fund now is community-scale water resilience, which stakeholders ranked among the top priorities: including rainwater harvesting and storage, community reverse-osmosis units (a mobile RO unit was proposed for Virgin Gorda this week), water-quality monitoring, and drought preparedness for community facilities and farms.

Every recommendation in Part E of the Question Register is recorded and goes to the Board as consultation input for the final design of the Call and the Trust’s instruments. Three warrant immediate response.

On the Government share (R-02): the Act already caps Government access at 50 per cent of annual disbursements; the recommendation of a lower cap is recorded for the Board’s consideration.

On review criteria based on social, environmental and economic impact (R-03): this is the design; the published criteria weight exactly these impacts.

On the proposed Special Fund under the Public Finance Management Act to ease Government access (R-01): this thoughtful proposal is recorded and will be conveyed to the Ministry of Finance and the Board together.

The sector and technology priorities in Part F, led overwhelmingly by sargassum management, water, renewable energy, circular economy and waste, ecosystems, and climate-smart agriculture, are the direct input to the prioritization list that will be published with the Call, and to the technologies and project-ideas compendium the Trust committed this week to assemble. Named technologies and communities of interest are being carried into that compendium and the Partnership outreach.

The participant contributions on what community resilience looks like are adopted into the record of this Call and quoted in the answer to Q-43. They will inform how the theme is described in the Call documents.

Every project idea and partner interest in Part H is being transferred to the Partnership Alliance Register pipeline. Each named organisation and contact will receive the Partnership registration link directly, and the ideas, from mangrove-fortified coastlines and coral restoration to sargassum testing, the Virgin Gorda microgrid, organics diversion at Pockwood Pond and the Tortola mosquito lab, will be considered for the compendium and, where their proponents apply, assessed through the published process like all others.