Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Approach to Country Ownership

The evaluation finds that while country ownership is a core principle of the GCF, its operationalization is uneven and often reduced to procedural compliance. Key structural bottlenecks include limited institutional capacity of National Designated Authorities (NDAs), a heavy reliance on International Accredited Entities (IAEs) over Direct Access Entities (DAEs), and a lack of meaningful whole-of-society engagement. The report recommends shifting from a process-based approach to one focused on long-term institution-building, simplifying access to finance, and embedding inclusivity as a cultural default.

• Country ownership in the GCF is currently more aspirational than operational, functioning as a series of disconnected processes rather than a cohesive 'system-level property'.
• National Designated Authorities (NDAs) are central to the GCF model, but their effectiveness varies significantly based on their government positioning and technical capacity.
• The no-objection letter (NOL) procedure is often treated as a procedural checkpoint or a 'gatekeeping tool' rather than a mechanism for genuine strategic leadership by countries.
• Direct access remains underutilized, with the GCF project portfolio heavily skewed toward International Accredited Entities (IAEs), who account for 80% of approved financing.
• The Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (RPSP) has helped strengthen some NDAs but has often delivered fragmented technical assistance and relied too heavily on short-term consultants.
• Stakeholder engagement is frequently limited to formal compliance, with civil society, indigenous peoples, and women's groups often marginalized in the project design process.
• Private sector and multi-country projects are perceived as being driven by AEs and are often misaligned with national strategies due to the limitations of the current NOL model.
• Despite improvements in project approval speeds during GCF-2, the Fund is still perceived as slow and unpredictable, which encourages opportunistic rather than strategic planning by countries.
• The GCF is transitioning from 'country programmes' toward 'country platforms' to better align finance with national investment plans, though the latter are not yet consistently applied.
• The GCF's '50by30' vision for scaled-up finance risks marginalizing country ownership if it is not accompanied by targeted investments in national systems and simplified processes.

APA

Green Climate Fund (2026). Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Approach to Country Ownership. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15b-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-approach-country-ownership-gcf-b44-06-final.pdf

Chicago

Green Climate Fund. Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Approach to Country Ownership. 2026. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15b-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-approach-country-ownership-gcf-b44-06-final.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Green Climate Fund |title=Independent Evaluation of the GCF’s Approach to Country Ownership |date=4 March 2026 |url=https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15b-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-approach-country-ownership-gcf-b44-06-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 Approach to Country Ownership}}, institution = {Green Climate Fund}, year = {2026}, month = mar, url = {https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/15b-independent-evaluation-gcf-s-approach-country-ownership-gcf-b44-06-final.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }