Report of the Synthesis Study: An IEU deliverable contributing to the Second Performance Review of the Green Climate Fund

The report synthesizes evidence from the GCF-1 period, finding that while the institution has established its functional architecture, it continues to struggle with slow accreditation processes, limited direct access for national entities, and poor quality in results measurement and reporting. It highlights a lack of a formal accreditation strategy and persistent policy gaps at the Board level. While the portfolio is growing, most projects are still in early implementation stages, and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has compounded existing delays. The report identifies the need for a more strategic approach to paradigm shifts and the mobilization of private sector finance, noting that current results reporting lacks credibility due to inconsistent methodologies.

• The GCF lacks a formal accreditation strategy, leaving the composition and size of its accredited entity (AE) network supply-driven and without clear corporate targets.
• The accreditation process is inefficient and protracted; the median time from application to Board approval increased during GCF-1 to 1,321 days for entities accredited at B.29.
• Direct access entities (DAEs) represent an increasing proportion of AEs (nearly two-thirds), and funding approved through them rose to 23% in GCF-1 from 12% in the initial resource mobilization (IRM), yet the portfolio remains skewed toward international accredited entities (IAEs).
• Only about 37% of GCF-eligible countries are covered by a DAE, with particularly low coverage for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) at 10%.
• Country programmes (CPs) and entity work programmes (EWPs) have not yet adequately delivered on their goals of identifying high-impact areas or creating country-owned pipelines, often serving as mere compliance requirements.
• The Simplified Approval Process (SAP) has not meaningfully streamlined the project cycle or reduced the burden of project preparation, with median processing times only 8% shorter than the standard Proposal Approval Process (PAP).
• The Private Sector Facility (PSF) has not achieved targeted participation, with a limited pool of private sector AEs and a tendency to co-invest in typical energy projects rather than innovative, high-risk climate projects.
• The GCF has achieved a nearly equitable balance between mitigation and adaptation financing, with almost half of its financing allocated to adaptation through GCF-1.
• Results measurement and reporting during implementation have been poor, with over half of a reviewed sample of 100 funding proposals showing gaps in monitoring frameworks assessed as moderate, elevated, or high risk.
• The GCF's ability to report aggregate results is compromised by inconsistent methodologies; for example, the number of beneficiaries for adaptation projects is driven by a few large projects and lacks a standardized counting method.
• The GCF Board has struggled to close policy gaps, with critical items such as the Updated Accreditation Framework (UAF) and the private sector strategy remaining pending or unopened in recent meetings.
• The GCF's institutional governance is characterized by a consensus-based decision-making model that has occasionally led to gridlock and delays in policy formulation.
• The GCF has made substantial efforts to align with other multilateral funds, specifically the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Adaptation Fund, through joint programming and coordinated readiness activities.

APA

Green Climate Fund (2022). Report of the Synthesis Study: An IEU deliverable contributing to the Second Performance Review of the Green Climate Fund. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b31-inf14.pdf

Chicago

Green Climate Fund. Report of the Synthesis Study: An IEU deliverable contributing to the Second Performance Review of the Green Climate Fund. 2022. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b31-inf14.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Green Climate Fund |title=Report of the Synthesis Study: An IEU deliverable contributing to the Second Performance Review of the Green Climate Fund |date=28 March 2022 |url=https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b31-inf14.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{greenclimatefund2022report, author = {{Green Climate Fund}}, title = {{Report of the Synthesis Study: An IEU deliverable contributing to the Second Performance Review of the Green Climate Fund}}, institution = {Green Climate Fund}, year = {2022}, month = mar, url = {https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b31-inf14.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }