Independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the GCF’s investments in the African States

The GCF has become the largest multilateral climate finance contributor to African states, but its portfolio is heavily weighted toward mitigation (59%) over adaptation (41%), despite urgent regional needs. While the fund has successfully leveraged co-financing, particularly from Multilateral Development Banks, it faces significant efficiency challenges, including cumbersome accreditation and approval processes, language barriers for non-Anglophone states, and a paucity of Direct Access Entities (DAEs). The report recommends a strategic shift toward adaptation, streamlining access for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Fragile, Conflict and Violence (FCV) states, and increasing regional presence in Africa.

• The GCF is the largest multilateral climate finance contributor to African states, but its portfolio is skewed toward mitigation, with mitigation-focused projects accounting for 59% of approved finance over seven years (2015-2022).
• Cooperation and complementarity between the GCF and other funds like the GEF, AF, and CIF remain largely unsystematic and are primarily driven by accredited entities rather than institutional frameworks.
• Country ownership is generally moderate across African states, but the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (RPSP) is under-utilised and difficult to access for those who need it most.
• The GCF's direct access model is hindered by a lack of accredited Direct Access Entities (DAEs), with only 18 DAEs accredited across 13 of the 54 African countries.
• While the GCF has effectively leveraged co-financing, there is a significant gap for LDCs and FCV states, and 77% of all co-financing has been directed toward mitigation.
• Private sector engagement has gained momentum since 2019, but remains focused on mitigation and large entities, with modest emphasis on micro, small- and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs).
• The GCF's processes are described as cumbersome and rigid, with the average review time for projects in Africa (approximately 13 months) being double the stated six-month target.
• The GCF's English-only policy is a significant barrier for non-Anglophone African states, particularly in the Sahel and Maghreb regions.
• Gender-related co-benefits are growing and diverse, but evidence of transformative change in power relations remains anecdotal and confined to specific projects.
• Engagement with indigenous peoples is very limited in the African portfolio, and there is often a reticence among African stakeholders to recognize indigeneity in project contexts.
• There is a perceived lack of GCF regional presence in Africa, leading to calls for an African country office to improve communication and relevance.

APA

Green Climate Fund (2023). Independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the GCF’s investments in the African States. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b36-13.pdf

Chicago

Green Climate Fund. Independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the GCF’s investments in the African States. 2023. https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b36-13.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Green Climate Fund |title=Independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the GCF’s investments in the African States |date=19 June 2023 |url=https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b36-13.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{greenclimatefund2023independent, author = {{Green Climate Fund}}, title = {{Independent evaluation of the relevance and effectiveness of the GCF’s investments in the African States}}, institution = {Green Climate Fund}, year = {2023}, month = jun, url = {https://www.greenclimate.fund/sites/default/files/document/gcf-b36-13.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }