The Future of the Funds

The report analyzes seven multilateral climate funds—the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Adaptation Fund (AF), Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) and Strategic Climate Fund (SCF)—against five strategies for transformative change: achieving impact at scale, promoting country ownership, improving efficiency, supporting equitable allocation, and increasing accountability. It finds that the proliferation of funds has led to overlapping roles and inefficiencies. The authors recommend short-term reforms to clarify fund specialization and long-term architectural changes, including the potential consolidation or sunsetting of certain funds, such as the CIFs, SCCF, and LDCF, to streamline the climate finance landscape.

• The current multilateral climate finance architecture is characterized by a proliferation of funds that has resulted in "overlapping of roles and duplication of effort," creating inefficiencies in how finance is channeled and delivered.
• The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is the largest multilateral climate fund by pledges, with initial resource mobilization in 2014 exceeding $10 billion.
• The Adaptation Fund (AF) has pioneered 'direct access,' allowing national institutions to receive funding without international intermediaries; 34 percent of its resources have been channeled through national implementing entities (NIEs).
• The Global Environment Facility (GEF) maintains a high cofinancing ratio of 1:9.7, although this data is skewed by a small number of large projects.
• The Climate Investment Funds (CIFs) operate exclusively through five multilateral development banks (MDBs) and use a programmatic approach based on country investment plans to catalyze private investment.
• The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) provides a distinct advantage for LDCs because they do not have to compete for funding with more developed countries.
• The Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) has struggled to attract funding, with its mitigation and economic diversification windows (SCCF-C and -D) remaining dormant due to a lack of contributions.
• The GCF has the highest administrative costs per project approved, exceeding $1 million, though this is expected to decrease as its portfolio expands.
• The Adaptation Fund is noted for its speed of delivery, taking an average of 8 to 12 months to approve projects once an entity is accredited.
• There is a significant gap in the distribution of climate finance, as middle-income developing countries have received the greatest share, while 15 developing countries have received no support from any multilateral climate fund.
• The report recommends that in the short term, funds should specialize to reduce duplication: the GEF should focus on cross-convention work, the LDCF on LDC adaptation, the SCCF on technology transfer, and the AF on small-scale adaptation.
• In the long term, the report suggests the CIFs should sunset if the GCF can successfully scale up and absorb their programmatic role.
• The report proposes the potential absorption of the SCCF and LDCF into the GEF to address resource constraints and administrative inefficiencies.
• To improve efficiency, the report recommends the harmonization of fiduciary standards, environmental and social safeguards, and gender policies across all funds.

APA

Amerasinghe, N., Thwaites, J., Larsen, G., & Ballesteros, A. (2017). The Future of the Funds. World Resources Institute. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/The_Future_of_the_Funds_0.pdf#page=34

Chicago

Amerasinghe, Niranjali, Joe Thwaites, Gaia Larsen, and Athena Ballesteros. The Future of the Funds. World Resources Institute, 2017. https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/The_Future_of_the_Funds_0.pdf#page=34.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Amerasinghe |first1=Niranjali |last2=Thwaites |first2=Joe |last3=Larsen |first3=Gaia |last4=Ballesteros |first4=Athena |title=The Future of the Funds |publisher=World Resources Institute |date=2017 |url=https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/The_Future_of_the_Funds_0.pdf#page=34 |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{amerasinghe2017future, author = {Amerasinghe, Niranjali and Thwaites, Joe and Larsen, Gaia and Ballesteros, Athena}, title = {{The Future of the Funds}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, year = {2017}, url = {https://wriorg.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/The_Future_of_the_Funds_0.pdf#page=34}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }