Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Simplified Approval Process

The evaluation concludes that the SAP has become operationally ineffective, failing to deliver on its promises of simplification and acceleration. While it has provided unintended value as a 'stepping-stone' for Direct Access Entities (DAEs) to build institutional capacity, it is now virtually indistinguishable from the standard Project Approval Process (PAP). The report recommends discontinuing the SAP in its current form and replacing it with a new, integrated access modality featuring delegated authority and a focus on replicating proven interventions rather than piloting new ideas.

• The SAP has failed to achieve its core objectives of simplification and acceleration, becoming operationally indistinguishable from the standard Project Approval Process (PAP).
• Approval timelines have worsened significantly over time; the median time from Concept Note submission to Funding Proposal approval increased from 365 days during the IRM period to 1,333 days for GCF-2.
• Reforms introduced under decision B.32/05 counterintuitively slowed down the early stages of the approval process, with median processing time increasing from 479 days pre-B.32 to 1,170 days post-B.32.
• There is a severe bottleneck in resource delivery: only 24.2% of approved SAP funding (USD 159.7 million of USD 659 million) has been disbursed to entities, and only 7% (USD 45.7 million) has been spent on implementation.
• The SAP has provided significant unintended value as a capacity-building 'stepping-stone' for Direct Access Entities (DAEs), helping them gain the confidence and procedural familiarity needed to pursue larger projects.
• The restriction of the SAP to Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS) Category C (minimal/no risk) projects limits its strategic relevance by excluding many essential adaptation activities, such as resilient agriculture or coastal protection.
• Transaction costs for the SAP are excessively high, with some entities reporting preparation costs up to USD 750,000, which is three to 10 times higher than comparable funds.
• The SAP is most effective when scaling and replicating proven models (e.g., R4 Rural Resilience Initiative and CREWS framework) rather than attempting breakthrough innovation.
• The GCF's requirement for full Board approval for all SAP projects creates a bottleneck that is absent in comparator funds (like GEF, AF, or Gavi) which use delegated authority.
• Statistical analysis shows the SAP effectively targets vulnerable populations, with a 16.3% increase in investments targeting the livelihoods of people and communities.

APA

Green Climate Fund (2026). Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Simplified Approval Process. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15a-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-simplified-approval-process-gcf-b44-05-final.pdf

Chicago

Green Climate Fund. Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Simplified Approval Process. 2026. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15a-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-simplified-approval-process-gcf-b44-05-final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Green Climate Fund |title=Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Simplified Approval Process |date=4 March 2026 |url=https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15a-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-simplified-approval-process-gcf-b44-05-final.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{greenclimatefund2026independent, author = {{Green Climate Fund}}, title = {{Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Simplified Approval Process}}, institution = {Green Climate Fund}, year = {2026}, month = mar, url = {https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15a-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-simplified-approval-process-gcf-b44-05-final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }