Review of the initial proposal approval process

The GCF Secretariat conducted a review of the initial proposal approval process based on experience from the first several rounds of funding. Key issues identified include low quality of funding proposals, inconsistent policy decisions, and long processing times ranging from one to 18 months. The report recommends shifting toward strategic programming and a more structured concept note phase to improve 'quality at entry'. Proposed changes include a new prioritization queue for funding proposals, a revised project cycle that requires NDA confirmation of concept notes, and the development of an online submission portal. The Board is also asked to consider a two-stage approval process and a more robust policy for project restructuring and cancellation.

• The GCF pipeline has grown significantly, with 193 concept notes requesting USD 9.3 billion and 57 public- and private-sector funding proposals requesting USD 3.6 billion as of 15 May 2017.
• Board members expressed concerns regarding the low quality of funding proposals, specifically noting that potential climate impacts were not always clearly developed and that there was an excessive reliance on grants over loans or equity.
• Processing times for funding proposals vary greatly, taking between one month and 18 months or more, often due to insufficient documentation or technical disagreements between the Secretariat and Accredited Entities.
• The Secretariat recommends moving away from a 'first come, first served' approach to a prioritized queue that favors proposals originating from strategic programming, the Project Preparation Facility (PPF), and Requests for Proposals (RFPs).
• To improve quality at entry, the report suggests that a concept note should always precede a spontaneous submission funding proposal to allow for meaningful feedback.
• The updated project and programme activity cycle introduces a new stage where the Secretariat must seek confirmation from the National Designated Authority (NDA) or Focal Point (FP) that a concept note aligns with national priorities.
• The GCF identifies a need for new policies regarding post-approval management, specifically for project restructuring (Major Changes), reallocation of funds, and the cancellation or suspension of disbursements.

APA

Green Climate Fund (2017). Review of the initial proposal approval process. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b17-18.pdf

Chicago

Green Climate Fund. Review of the initial proposal approval process. 2017. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b17-18.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Green Climate Fund |title=Review of the initial proposal approval process |date=5 July 2017 |url=https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b17-18.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{greenclimatefund2017review, author = {{Green Climate Fund}}, title = {{Review of the initial proposal approval process}}, institution = {Green Climate Fund}, year = {2017}, month = jul, url = {https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b17-18.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }