The GCF should be the “keystone” climate finance institution supporting the objectives of the Paris Agreement, including reducing emissions and building climate resilience in support of countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), as well as transforming financial flows. The GCF’s approach to the project cycle will be critical in order to build and efficiently support a strong pipeline of projects and programs that support these goals.
In response to the GCF’s call for submissions on the review of the proposal approval process, CCAP has submitted its perspective, highlighting three broad approaches for consideration:
1. Enhance readiness and project preparation support to improve the quality of projects entering the project cycle. The Board should allocate substantial resources to readiness and project preparation activities as a strategic investment to ensure significant volumes of financing can flow at scale without sacrificing project quality. This support should focus on helping countries to convert their INDC goals into policies, measures, and financeable investment strategies, with a view to advance the goals of the Paris Agreement and ensure that the initial $10 billion pledged to the GCF can by committed to transformational programs by the end of the Initial Resource Mobilization.
2. Introduce an optional two-stage approval process to allow proponents get useful feedback and project development support based on submitted concept notes, should they wish it, before formally submitting a final proposal. Providing the opportunity for proponents to receive support early in the proposal development process can incentivize the development of innovative ideas and new approaches that advance transformational change. It can also help Nationally Designated Authorities engage stakeholders and key ministries by helping them bring international support to the table quickly.
3. Streamline information required for decision-making within a more transparent overall process. To promote transformational funding at scale, the GCF should simplify the funding application templates and provide further guidance on their requirements. Efforts should also be made to increase transparency in the assessment of funding proposals. The Board might also want to foster dialogue on more political questions related to funding requests, such as the balance between domestic resources and international support in a program to support planned actions, so that a common understanding can emerge over time.
