Understanding Green Climate Fund Support for Adaptation Planning

This analysis of 108 GCF readiness proposals reveals that funding is primarily directed toward governance and institutional coordination (37.1%) and evidence-based planning (32%), with significantly less investment in private sector engagement (2.6%). While most countries use these grants to draft or update National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and develop investment pipelines, the report highlights a need for more national delivery partners and a stronger focus on domestic financing and concrete implementation steps, such as climate adaptation investment plans.

• Budget allocation across GCF NAP Readiness outcomes is heavily skewed toward governance and evidence, with the largest share (37.1% or USD 69.3 million) dedicated to strengthening adaptation planning governance and institutional coordination (Outcome 3.1). Producing the evidence base for adaptation (Outcome 3.2) received 32% (USD 59.9 million), while increasing adaptation finance (Outcome 3.4) and catalyzing private sector engagement (Outcome 3.3) received 13.3% and 2.6% respectively.
• Consultants and professional services are the primary expenditure categories. Individual consultants account for 32.2% (USD 60.2 million) of the analyzed budgets, with local consultants receiving nearly double the funding of international ones (65.3% vs 34.5%). Professional services follow at 23.2% (USD 43.4 million).
• The majority of proposals focus on the formulation or updating of NAP documents (79% of 108 proposals) and sectoral adaptation plans (over 50%). The most common priority sectors for these plans are Agriculture and Livestock (55%), Forestry and Biodiversity (36%), and Fisheries and Marine Ecosystems (27%).
• While many countries are preparing for implementation, there is a gap in concrete action: 73% of proposals develop investment pipelines and 84% develop financing strategies, but only 39% conduct pre-feasibility studies and 32% implement pilot projects.
• Gender considerations are integrated into all 108 reviewed proposals, reflecting GCF requirements. Over half (56%) specifically use resources to conduct gender analyses, and 50% include gender-related considerations in stakeholder engagement.
• UN agencies are the dominant delivery partners, accounting for 74% (84 proposals) of supported countries, while national delivery partners account for only 12% (13 proposals).

APA

Hernández, M., Grey, O., Ledwell, C., & Yang, G. J. (2024). Understanding Green Climate Fund Support for Adaptation Planning. NAP Global Network. https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/napgn-en-2024-gcf-support-adaptation-v5.pdf

Chicago

Hernández, Maribel, Orville Grey, Christian Ledwell, and Geneva Juanyu Yang. Understanding Green Climate Fund Support for Adaptation Planning. NAP Global Network, 2024. https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/napgn-en-2024-gcf-support-adaptation-v5.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hernández |first1=Maribel |last2=Grey |first2=Orville |last3=Ledwell |first3=Christian |last4=Yang |first4=Geneva Juanyu |title=Understanding Green Climate Fund Support for Adaptation Planning |publisher=NAP Global Network |date=November 2024 |url=https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/napgn-en-2024-gcf-support-adaptation-v5.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hernndez2024understanding, author = {Hernández, Maribel and Grey, Orville and Ledwell, Christian and Yang, Geneva Juanyu}, title = {{Understanding Green Climate Fund Support for Adaptation Planning}}, institution = {NAP Global Network}, year = {2024}, month = nov, url = {https://napglobalnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/napgn-en-2024-gcf-support-adaptation-v5.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }