Independent Assessment of the GCF Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme

The Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) found that the SAP Pilot Scheme has not significantly accelerated project approvals or simplified requirements for proponents. While the SAP has increased access for African States and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), it has failed to attract Small Island Developing States (SIDS) or the private sector. The median time from concept note submission to Board approval for SAP projects is 365 days, only 8% shorter than comparable regular projects. The IEU recommends developing a formal SAP strategy, simplifying review criteria, and delegating approval authority to the Executive Director.

• The SAP modality has not achieved its primary goal of accelerating the project cycle; the median time from concept note submission to Board approval is 365 days, which is only 8% shorter than for a comparable set of regular project approval process (PAP) projects.
• The SAP portfolio consists of 13 projects implemented in 12 countries, representing 16% of the number of projects approved by the GCF Board since the modality's inception, with a total GCF commitment of USD 115 million and USD 71 million in co-financing.
• While the SAP has been responsive to African States and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS) remain underrepresented in the portfolio.
• The 'ready for scaling up' eligibility criterion is poorly defined, inconsistently applied, and has not been used as a selection tool to reject proposals.
• Most SAP projects focus on testing or demonstrating ideas in new contexts rather than scaling up proven initiatives, representing a missed opportunity for transformational change.
• The review process is characterized by multiple layers and duplications, often resulting in non-consolidated, repetitive, or contradictory comments being sent to project proponents.
• Four crucial elements of the original SAP Board decision remain unimplemented: simplified financial terms, approvals in the absence of Board meetings, iTAP reviews on a rolling basis, and a robust monitoring system.
• The private sector has shown limited interest in the SAP due to a lack of information and the unpredictable, slow nature of the process, rather than the specific eligibility criteria or project size.
• There are no specific Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the Secretariat that incentivize task managers to prioritize the processing of SAP projects over regular projects.
• Benchmarking against other institutions shows that the most common fast-tracking approaches include delegation of authority to management, simpler application forms, and predictable business standards.

APA

Green Climate Fund (2021). Independent Assessment of the GCF Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b30-07.pdf

Chicago

Green Climate Fund. Independent Assessment of the GCF Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme. 2021. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b30-07.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Green Climate Fund |title=Independent Assessment of the GCF Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme |date=20 September 2021 |url=https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b30-07.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{greenclimatefund2021independent, author = {{Green Climate Fund}}, title = {{Independent Assessment of the GCF Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme}}, institution = {Green Climate Fund}, year = {2021}, month = sep, url = {https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b30-07.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }