Readinessguidebook Version1 1

Readiness and Preparatory
Support Programme Guidebook

A practical guide on how to prepare readiness proposals
and how to implement readiness grants
Version 1 – March 2023

READINESS AND PREPARATORY SUPPORT PROGRAMME GUIDEBOOK
Abstract
This revised version of the Readiness and Preparatory Support guidebook provides a
comprehensive overview of the Green Climate Fund's Readiness Programme, offering
valuable guidance on how to craft and submit high-quality Readiness proposals while
effectively managing implementation challenges. The guidebook begins by introducing the
Green Climate Fund and the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme, followed by a
detailed breakdown of the Readiness grant cycle. It also provides a how-to guide for
completing the GCF Readiness Proposal Template, ensuring that proposals are developed
and submitted successfully for approval by the GCF.
This guidebook is tailored to GCF National Designated Authorities (NDAs) or Focal Points,
Delivery Partners (DPs), Direct Access Entities (DAEs), and other stakeholders in developing
countries that are involved in the development of Readiness Proposals.
ii GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Change control table

The Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme Guidebook is a living document and the
GCF Secretariat will aim at updating on a frequent basis and following feedback from National
Designated Authorities and Delivery Partners. Any necessary modifications will be recorded
in the table below.
Change # Details of the modification Section, Page Date
1 Project Development Technical Assistance Table 2 under 17 April 2023

(PDTA) modality has been removed from Part II, page 16.
under the Annual readiness modality.
PDTA is available but it is not subjected to
the USD 1 million Annual readiness
allocated to countries.
2 The implementation timeline is no longer Table 14 under 25 April 2023

required in a Gantt chart format under Annex 1.
section 6. Question 7 of the Completeness Readiness
Check has been revised accordingly. Standards
Handbook, page
50.
GREEN CLIMATE FUND iii

Contents
Foreword .......................................................................................................................... vi
Executive summary ......................................................................................................... viii
The GCF and context of the Readiness Programme .................................................... viii
Recent changes within GCF and to the Readiness Programme ................................... viii
Climate finance, country needs and the Readiness Programme ................................... ix
Readiness grant cycle ................................................................................................... ix
How to use this Guidebook and Templates ................................................................... ix
List of commonly used acronyms...................................................................................... xi
Glossary of key terms ....................................................................................................... xii
Part I. The Green Climate Fund ......................................................................................... 1
Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1
GCF structure ................................................................................................................ 1
GCF business model ..................................................................................................... 2
GCF Strategic Plan ........................................................................................................ 2
GCF themes and result areas ........................................................................................ 4
GCF Policies .................................................................................................................. 4
Part II. Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme ................................................... 7
Readiness Programme strategy and objectives ............................................................. 7
Climate finance, country needs and the Readiness Programme .................................... 9
Readiness support available ........................................................................................ 15
Readiness Results Management Framework ............................................................... 17
Part III. Readiness grant cycle ......................................................................................... 19
Part IV. How-to guide for the GCF Readiness Proposal Template ................................... 20
Section 1. Summary (indicative maximum length: three pages) ................................... 20
Section 2. Situation analysis (indicative maximum length: four pages) ......................... 23
Section 3. Theory of change (indicative maximum length: three pages) ....................... 26
Section 4. Logical framework ....................................................................................... 30
Section 5. Implementation arrangements and other information (indicative maximum
length: eight pages) ..................................................................................................... 36
Section 6. Budget, procurement, HR and Implementation plans (indicative maximum
length: 4 pages) ........................................................................................................... 42
Annexes .......................................................................................................................... 49
Annex 1. Readiness Standards Handbook ................................................................... 49
iv GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Annex 2. Leveraging GCF Readiness support to develop a climate-aligned financial

sector ........................................................................................................................... 64
Annex 3. Readiness Needs Assessment framework .................................................... 68
Annex 4. List of potential readiness activities ............................................................... 71
Annex 5. Non-eligible activities .................................................................................... 75
Annex 6. Eligible Costs for NDA and/or Focal Point Direct Support ............................. 76
Annex 7. RRMF ........................................................................................................... 77
Annex 8. Sample Letter of Financial Support regional/multi-country proposals ............ 77
Annex 9. Multiple-year strategic readiness proposals .................................................. 78
Annex 10. Readiness proposal templates .................................................................... 81
Annex 11. Eligibility and benchmark for costs .............................................................. 81
Annex 12. List of GCF Board decisions related to readiness ........................................ 82
GREEN CLIMATE FUND v

Foreword
Developing countries are often the most vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change. They are also at the forefront of the international effort
to raise climate ambitions and transition to a new low-emission and
climate-resilient global economy in pursuit of Paris Agreement goals. As
the largest dedicated climate fund, the Green Climate Fund’s mandate
is to support this ambition by turning innovative ideas into reality through
a range of funding windows and climate financing instruments.
One such funding window is the Readiness and Preparatory Support
Programme (Readiness Programme). The Readiness Programme is a
crucial element of the Fund’s approach to ensuring country ownership and facilitating
increased flows of climate finance. Developing countries can apply for grants to help National
Designated Authorities (NDAs) or Focal Points, Delivery Partners (DPs), Direct Access
Entities (DAEs) and other developing country stakeholders engage in the planning and design
of bankable climate investments that reflect national strategies and priorities. The Readiness
Programme can also help to strengthen broader enabling environments and financial systems
and help countries to bring develop Concept Notes to be submitted to the GCF.
This Guidebook serves as comprehensive guidance to all GCF stakeholders with an interest
in the Readiness Programme. Compared to previous editions, this revised version aims to
provide not only guidance on using the proposal template, but also inspiration for proposal
conceptualization and development; clear and transparent information on submission,
appraisal, and approval processes, and advice and protocols for effective and efficient grant
implementation. In providing this information, it is our hope that requests submitted to the GCF
for Readiness support demonstrate a standard of high quality that is commensurate with the
challenge faced by developing countries who require bold action on climate change.
The target audience of this Guidebook is GCF National Designated Authorities (NDAs). NDAs
are the central stakeholders in all GCF operations, particularly with respect to the Readiness
Programme. NDAs are responsible for the development and submission of requests for
Readiness support. NDAs are eligible to directly access Readiness grants or may nominate
Deliver Partners to collaborate on the implementation of grant activities. In all cases NDAs are
responsible for oversight of Readiness activities to ensure alignment with their national vision.
This Guidebook is also designed to facilitate greater understanding of GCF processes by the
Delivery Partners chosen by NDAs to implement Readiness grants. Delivery Partners are
crucial entities to ensure that Readiness needs identified by NDAs – and the approved
activities to address those needs – are implemented and executed effectively and efficiently.
Delivery Partners play a key role interfacing with the NDA and national stakeholders on one
hand and with the GCF Secretariat in reporting and delivering results on the other. This
Guidebook contains information for Delivery Partners to implement Readiness grants for
highest impact.
Part I of the Guidebook provides an overview of the Green Climate Fund. Part II provides an
overview of the Readiness Programme. Part III focuses on the grant cycle and explains the
roles, responsibilities and indicative timelines for development, submission, approval and
implementation. Part IV serves as a step-by-step guide to completing the Readiness proposal
template and annexes.
vi GREEN CLIMATE FUND

This Guidebook is a living document and will be regularly updated to reflect lessons learned
and new GCF Board decisions. Our hope is that it will be a useful guide for our partners to
build the necessary capacities, policies, and programming orientations to facilitate
transformational investments geared towards low-emission and climate resilient development
pathways.
Yours sincerely,
Yannick Glemarec
Executive Director, GCF
GREEN CLIMATE FUND vii

Executive summary
The GCF and context of the Readiness Programme
The GCF is the world’s largest dedicated climate fund whose mission is to make a significant
and ambitious contribution to global efforts to combat climate change. The GCF supports
developing countries in their contribution to the ultimate objective of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and its Paris Agreement, promoting a
paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways. The GCF
fulfils this function by providing technical and financial support to developing countries. GCF
support builds capacities for systemic climate investment planning, catalysing innovation,
mobilising investments at scale, and enhancing the capacity of wider national financial
systems to mainstream climate risks into decision-making. These efforts help to shift an
increasing flow of finance toward investments that limit or reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions and helping developing countries to adapt to climate change impacts. The GCF is
an operating entity of the Financial Mechanism of the UNFCCC and of the Financial
Mechanism of the Paris Agreement.
The Readiness Programme is one of the three main GCF funding modalities, along with the
Project Preparation Facility (PPF) and funding for mitigation and adaptation activities. The
Readiness Programme can support a wide range of activities to help National Designated
Authorities (NDAs) or Focal Points, Delivery Partners (DPs), Direct Access Entities (DAEs)
and other developing country stakeholders engage in the planning and design of bankable
climate investments that reflect national strategies and priorities. The Readiness Programme
can also help to strengthen broader enabling environments and financial systems and help
countries to bring develop Concept Notes to be submitted to the GCF – although using the
Readiness Programme for this is not a prerequisite. Resources may be provided in the form
of grants (of up to USD 1 million per country per year) or technical assistance, and each
country may request up to a maximum of USD 3 million to support adaptation planning
processes, including the formulation of national, subnational, and sectoral adaptation plans.
Since the start of Readiness Programme operations in 2015, and with the GCF-funded activity
portfolio as of 2023 exceeding USD 11 billion in GCF commitments with a total asset value
including co-financing of over USD 40 billion, the Fund has been able to incorporate learning
from its programming results, operational experience and stakeholder perspectives into this
edition of the Readiness Guidebook. This is a user-friendly document, providing enhanced
guidance to NDAs or Focal Points, DPs and DAEs on how to make the most effective use of
Readiness support to advance the translation of national climate strategies into a flow of
bankable climate investments, and making the process for submission, approval, and
implementation of proposals clearer and more efficient.
Recent changes within GCF and to the Readiness Programme
Various changes and updates have been made to the GCF and specifically to the Readiness
Programme during its lifetime. As of 2022, the most recent changes include:
Operational changes including updating the Readiness Standard Operating Procedure
(SOP): Based on feedback received from NDAs, DPs, and Accredited Entities (AEs), the GCF
has streamlined internal processes and improved operational efficiencies for each stage of
the Readiness grant cycle.
Revision to the calculation date of the annual Readiness cap: In response to feedback from
countries, the GCF Secretariat has decided to extend the calculation of the annual cap from
the date of 31 December in any given year to 31 March of the following year.
viii GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Roll-out of Readiness Results Management Framework (RRMF): The Secretariat has

developed the Readiness Results Management Framework (RRMF) that will allow the Fund
and its partners to better capture the results of the Readiness Programme in a consistent and
coherent manner while supporting countries move towards more efficient access to climate
finance. The NDA and DP are required to use the RRMF to develop the logical framework as
part of the Readiness Programme proposal development. To use the RRMF effectively and
efficiently, the Secretariat has modified the proposal logical framework template that can be
seen in section 4 of this Guidebook. The NDA and DP will be supported in their use of the
RRMF through dedicated training and guidance documents, as well as tailored support by the
Secretariat.
Roll-out of the Portfolio Performance Management System (PPMS): PPMS for the Readiness
Programme is an online system that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of core
business processes during implementation, including report submission, processing of
disbursements and adaptive management requests, and capturing lessons learned and the
results of the Readiness Programme. The PPMS will help the GCF, NDAs and DPs collaborate
on readiness results in an efficient and effective manner. Details on how and when the PPMS
shall be utilized are presented in this Guidebook in part III (Readiness grant cycle).
Roll-out of the Readiness Standards Handbook: The Readiness Standards Handbook in
annex 1 of this Guidebook contains a series of guiding questions that Readiness proposal
reviewers should use for their appraisals. These questions were developed to be as complete
as possible in consultation with the inter-divisional review members. These criteria will confine
the review to the guiding questions to increase transparency in the review processes. The
handbook was rolled out in November 2022 and will further streamline the review process and
greatly support co-development of proposals. We encourage all our partners to make use of
the Readiness Standards Handbook when developing proposals to ensure alignment with the
GCF Guidebook and a faster review process.
Climate finance, country needs and the Readiness Programme
This section of the Guidebook aims to provide guidance to NDAs and DPs on how to be “ready”
by building the capacities needed to access GCF resources and other financing sources,
empower the countries to develop a long-term, strategic approach to support from GCF and
other sources, and realize their Nationally Determined Contributions, National Adaptation
Plans and/or their Long-Term Strategies.
Readiness grant cycle
The Secretariat has undertaken considerable efforts to update its Readiness Standard
Operating Procedures (SOP) to simplify internal processes and to boost operational
efficiencies in each of the seven (7) stages of the Readiness grant cycle. This includes the
development of review criteria to standardize processes and reviews and ensure consistency,
aiming to significantly reduce the number of proposal iterations, and to ultimately expedite
approvals of high-quality proposals. Additionally, the introduction of realistic service standards
for key business processes, ICT system automation, reorientation of roles and responsibilities
within functional Divisions, and boosting capacities across the Secretariat to ensure continued
service satisfaction of our key stakeholders, are among the administrative and operational
improvements being reflected in the revised Readiness grant cycle.
How to use this Guidebook and Templates
The Readiness Guidebook is a comprehensive manual for the Readiness Programme. The
Guidebook is divided into four parts. Part I provides an overview of the GCF. Part II provides
GREEN CLIMATE FUND ix

an overview of the Readiness Programme and its raison d’être. Part III explains the entire
cycle of a readiness grant from origination and co-development of the proposal till the closure
of the grant, and part IV is designed as a how-to guide for NDAs and DPs to prepare high-
quality readiness proposals that meet the GCF review and appraisal criteria. These criteria
are presented in the Readiness Standards Handbook in annex 1.
x GREEN CLIMATE FUND

List of commonly used acronyms
AE Accredited Entity
AML Anti-Money Laundering
CFT Countering the Financing of Terrorism
CN Concept Note
COP Conference of the Parties
CP Country Programme
DAE Direct Access Entity
DCP Division of Country Programming
DMA Division of Mitigation and Adaptation
DP Delivery Partner
DPM Division of Portfolio Management
DSS Division of Support Services
FMCA Financial Management Capacity Assessment
FWA Readiness Framework Agreement
GCF Green Climate Fund
IAE International Accredited Entity
LDC Least Developed Country
LEDS Low Emission Development Strategies
LoA Letter of Authorization
LTS Long Term Strategies
NAP National Adaptation Plan
NDA National Designated Authority
NDC Nationally Determined Contributions
NoA Notification of Approval
OGC Office of the General Counsel
ORMC Office of Risk Management and Compliance
PPF Project Preparation Facility
PPMS Portfolio Performance Management System
PSF Private Sector Facility
RPSP Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme
RRMF Readiness Results Management Framework
RWG Readiness Working Group
SIDS Small Island Developing States
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
UNSC United Nations Security Council
GREEN CLIMATE FUND xi

Glossary of key terms

Accreditation: pursuant to paragraph 45 of the Governing Instrument for the GCF, access to
GCF resources is granted to entities accredited by the Board. Accreditation is a process by
which entities are assessed and approved by the Board to access GCF funding. Accreditation
defines the way in which an entity can access GCF resources (e.g. the accreditation scope),
identifying the maximum limits of GCF financial support for which the entity can apply in a
single funding proposal, the financing modality (e.g. for managing projects, awarding grants,
on-lending, blending, undertaking equity investments and providing guarantees) and the
environmental and social risk levels.
Accredited Entities (AEs): Institutions or organizations accredited by the GCF to carry out a
range of activities, particularly developing and submitting project/programme funding
proposals and overseeing the management and implementation of projects and programmes.
National Designated Authorities (NDAs) can request an AE to serve as their Delivery Partner
(DP) for a specific Readiness grant (see definition of DP below). However, Readiness grants
can also be implemented by other DPs that may not have been accredited by the GCF. For
the sake of simplicity, this Guidebook refers to AEs as DPs when referring to AEs nominated
by National Designated Authorities to implement Readiness grants.
Adaptation Planning: The identification of adaptation priorities and development of strategies
and programmes to address these priorities in a continuous, dynamic, and iterative process.
GCF support for adaptation planning processes may have a national, sub-national and/or
sectoral focus, and could contribute to an integrated national vision for climate resilience.
Adaptation Planning Readiness grants support the achievement of objective 3 of the
Readiness Programme: Strengthening adaptation planning for investment.
Audited Financial Report: The final Audited Financial Report of the grant is submitted
together with the Completion Report upon grant completion to confirm that GCF resources
were used in accordance with the provisions of the grant agreement. The audit should be
conducted by independent auditors, unless otherwise specified in the legal agreements, and
the costs associated with these audits should be covered by the approved Readiness grant.
Completion Report: The Completion Report is submitted by the DP/NDA detailing the
completed grant activities and documenting the lessons learned and best practices garnered
from implementation. The Completion Report is due upon full execution of grant activities and
within the time frame specified in the grant agreement. A Completion Report provides an
opportunity for the DP/NDA to reflect on the grant implementation and results performance
vis-à-vis the set objectives and targets. The Completion Report includes a description of
results of the Readiness grant, its issues, challenges, and difficulties as well as the risks that
were identified and addressed, lessons learned (what worked and what did not work during
implementation) and identified best practices. The Completion Report may also indicate
whether or not there are future plans to scale up or replicate the Readiness grant and/or if
there are projects or programmes resulting from the Readiness support.
Concept note (CN): A document submitted to the Secretariat by AEs, NDAs or Focal Points
that provides basic information on an intended project or programme to seek feedback on
whether the concept is aligned with GCF investment criteria and policies.
Country Programme (CP): A GCF Country Programme (CP) is a document that presents a
country’s climate change priorities to the GCF, including a pipeline of projects that the country
would like to develop with the Fund. The CP provides an action plan that details how projects
and programmes are to be developed, the type of entity with which to partner, and the
Readiness and project preparation support required.
Delivery Partner (DP): Institutions implementing activities approved under the Readiness
Programme. DPs can be the NDA themselves, or another organization capable of
implementing technical assistance and capacity development grants selected by the NDA or
xii GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Focal Point, which could be a GCF AE. DPs provide services such as: development of
Readiness proposals in cooperation with NDA, implementation and supervision of Readiness
grants, fiduciary management, progress reporting, and grant completion and evaluation. DPs
that are not AEs must undertake a Financial Management Capacity Assessment (FMCA) (see
below) to be approved to implement Readiness support.
Direct Access Entities (DAEs): Institutions that apply for accreditation through the direct
access modality. They are regional, national, and sub-national institutions that are required to
provide evidence of a nomination from an NDA or Focal Point with their application documents.
Entities that are accredited under the direct access modality, or wish to be accredited, may be
eligible to receive support under the Readiness Programme at the request of its NDA or Focal
Point.
Entity Work Programme: A document developed by AEs that provides an overview of the
envisaged partnership of the AE with GCF, including strategies and plans to address climate
change. Also included are the comparative advantages, areas of work and priority sectors of
the AE, the alignment with CPs and country programming processes as well as GCF sectoral
guidance on the eight GCF results areas, and AE experience in implementing projects and
programmes across the eight GCF results areas. The Entity Work Programme also
summarizes the indicative projects and programmes of the AE, and outlines an action plan for
engagement with GCF for each replenishment period.
Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS): A set of criteria that aims to address key
environmental and social risks in the implementation of activities to be funded by the GCF.
The Fund has adopted a comprehensive environmental and social management system,
which can be found in annex III of GCF/B.07/11. The Fund has also adopted a revised
environmental and social policy through decision B.BM-2021/18.
Financial Management Capacity Assessment (FMCA): An assessment conducted for
organizations that are not AEs but are selected by NDA to serve as DP for a Readiness
proposal. NDA may also undergo the FMCA to implement Readiness support in their own
countries. Any organization that wishes to implement Readiness support must be either an
AEs or pass the FMCA to become a DP.
Fiduciary principles and standards: The GCF initial Fiduciary principles and standards
are set out in annex II to decision B.07/02. Each AE is required to have a set of fiduciary
principles and standards that are equivalent to the GCF Fiduciary principles and standards
and to apply the related principles and standards in the development and implementation of
GCF-financed projects.
Fiduciary standards are an element of the AE scope of accreditation that is determined based
on the assessment by the GCF of the fiduciary, transparency, accountability, financial
management, principles and policies, and track record of the AE compared to GCF fiduciary
principles and standards. All AEs must satisfy the basic fiduciary requirements of the GCF.
Additionally, each AE is accredited to a specialized fiduciary standard based on their policies,
procedures and track record. There are three specialized fiduciary standards that AEs may be
accredited for, including a combination thereof: Specialized fiduciary standards for project
management; Specialized fiduciary criteria for grant awards and/or funding allocation and
Specialized fiduciary criteria for on-lending; and/or blending (for loans, blending, equity and/or
guarantees).
Framework agreement: An umbrella agreement laying out the terms and conditions for
Delivery Partners and the GCF regarding the implementation of a portfolio of Readiness
Programme support requests (grants).
Funding proposal: A set of documents prepared by the AEs using GCF standard templates
(i.e. a funding proposal and its annexes) that is submitted to the GCF to formally request
funding for a project.
GREEN CLIMATE FUND xiii

Grant Agreement: A bilateral agreement between an NDA or a DP and the GCF (or a
designated counterparty for the GCF) stating the terms and conditions regarding the
implementation of a single Readiness grant.
Grant Recipient: For the purposes of the bilateral grant agreement or Readiness framework
agreement, the grant recipient is the institution identified in the proposal as the implementing
institution for the requested Readiness activities. This is usually the DP (or an AE acting in the
capacity of a DP) but may also be the NDA when the NDA has passed the FMCA and
submitted a Readiness Programme proposal. The grant recipient is responsible for the
submission of reports to the GCF, including disbursement requests, sharing relevant project
information, and acting upon the Secretariat’s guidance.
Gender Policy: The GCF Updated Gender Policy, adopted by the Board in decision B.24/12,
aims to ensure that the GCF will contribute to gender equality through a gender-sensitive
approach and will, in turn, achieve greater and more sustainable climate change results. Each
AE is required to have a gender policy that is equivalent to the GCF Gender Policy and to
apply its own gender policy in GCF-funded activities.
Governing Instrument for the GCF: The constituting document of the GCF approved by the
Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) at its seventeenth session on 11 December 2011 and annexed to its
decision 3/CP.17. This Instrument establishes the objectives and guiding principles of the
GCF, as well as its governance, institutional arrangements and operational guidelines.
Implementing Entity: an Implementing Entity means any entity, other than the Delivery
Partner which: (i) channels or uses GCF proceeds for the purposes of a GCF readiness grant,
and/or (ii) executes, carries out or implements the GCF readiness grant or any part thereof.
The reference to executing, carrying out or implementing a GCF readiness grant relates to the
exercise of discretion and decision making with respect to such readiness grant, or part
thereof. An Implementing Entity can be the NDA, a developing country that is a Party to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and/or any entity that possesses
a legal personality. The GCF requires the Delivery Partner to evaluate the capacity of and
engage the relevant Implementing Entities based on their ability to channel or use GCF
Proceeds and/or implement the GCF readiness grant, including by undertaking a Financial
Management Capacity Assessment (FMCA) and providing the FMCA to the GCF. Parties
procured by the Delivery Partner to provide services in relation to the GCF readiness grant
are not Implementing Entities.
Indigenous Peoples Policy: The GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy adopted by the Board in
decision B.19/11, ensures that activities of the GCF are developed and implemented in such
a way as to foster the respect, promotion, and safeguarding of indigenous peoples so that
they: (a) benefit from GCF-funded activities and projects in a culturally appropriate manner;
and (b) do not suffer harm or adverse effects from the design and implementation of GCF-
financed activities.
Long-term strategy (LTS): Long-term, low-GHG emission development strategies (LTS) are
a policy tool that can help countries put in place short-term actions in the context of the long-
term structural changes required to transition to a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy by
2050. In accordance with Article 4, paragraph 19, of the Paris Agreement, all Parties should
strive to formulate and communicate long-term strategies, considering their common but
differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities in light of different national
circumstances. The COP, by its decision 1/CP 21, paragraph 35, invited Parties to
communicate by 2020 to the UNFCCC secretariat mid-century long-term low greenhouse gas
emission development strategies.
Low Emission Development Strategy (LEDS): These strategies are national policies and/or
plans, including national climate change laws and green growth strategies and plans that
xiv GREEN CLIMATE FUND

reduce GHG emissions, increase resilience to climate change impacts and achieve social,
economic, and environmental development goals.
National Adaptation Plan (NAP): The UNFCCC established National Adaptation Plans
(NAPs) so that countries would formulate and implement national plans as a means of
identifying medium- and long-term adaptation needs and develop and implement strategies
and programmes to address those needs. NAPs are developed through a continuous,
progressive, and iterative process that follows a country-driven, gender-sensitive, participatory
and fully transparent approach. The Readiness Programme supports NAP efforts at the
regional, national, and sub-national levels.
National Designated Authority (NDA) or Focal Point: NDAs are government institutions
that serve as the interface between each country and the Fund. They provide broad strategic
oversight of GCF-funded activities in the country and communicate the country’s priorities for
financing low-emission and climate-resilient development. Further information on guidelines
for NDAs or Focal Points is available in annex XIII of decision B.08/45. A directory of NDAs is
available on the GCF website.
Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): The Paris Agreement (Article 4, paragraph
2) requires each Party to prepare, communicate and maintain successive NDCs, which form
the basis for countries to achieve the objectives of the Paris Agreement and contain
information on targets, policies and measures for reducing GHG emissions and adapting to
climate change impacts. NDCs can also contain information on country needs for and/or the
provision of finance, technologies, and capacity building for these actions. Countries
communicate new or updated NDCs every five years, starting in 2020.
National Designated Entity (NDE): NDEs are country Focal Points for the UNFCCC
Technology Mechanism, including its operative arm, the Climate Technology Centre and
Network (CTCN).
Project Preparation Facility (PPF): The PPF provides financial support to AEs to prepare
funding proposals for submission to the GCF based on a CN or a project idea that has been
cleared for project preparation support vis-à-vis GCF investment criteria.
Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (RPSP): The RPSP or Readiness
Programme is mandated by the Governing Instrument of the GCF. The RPSP aims to support
countries to strengthen wider enabling environments and financial systems and to advance
the translation of national climate strategies into a flow of bankable climate investments. At its
33rd meeting, the Board reaffirmed that the Readiness Programme is a strategic priority for the
GCF to enhance country ownership, to encourage direct access to GCF resources, and to
strengthen strategic programming.
Readiness Framework Agreement (FWA): An umbrella agreement laying out the terms and
conditions for Delivery Partners and the GCF regarding the implementation of a portfolio of
Readiness grants.
Standard Readiness: Standard Readiness support entails the following objectives: (1)
country capacity building, including establishing NDA and Focal Points and supporting Direct
Access Entities (DAEs); (2) strategic frameworks; (4) pipeline development; and (5)
knowledge sharing and learning. Standard Readiness does not entail objective (3)
strengthening adaptation planning for investment.
Technology Needs Assessment: The Technology Needs Assessment is a set of country-
driven activities leading to the identification, prioritization, and diffusion of environmentally
sound technologies for mitigation and adaptation to climate change.
GREEN CLIMATE FUND xv

Part I. The Green Climate Fund
Overview
The GCF is the world’s largest dedicated climate fund serving developing countries. The
mission of GCF is to make a significant and ambitious contribution to the global efforts to
combat climate change by supporting developing countries in implementing the UNFCCC and
its Paris Agreement promoting a paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient
development pathways. GCF has, since its inception, committed over USD 11.3 billion to over
209 projects and programmes in 128 developing countries, with a total asset value of over
USD 42 billion1.
The GCF is guided by the ambitious mission set out in the Governing Instrument for the GCF
(p.2):
“To make a significant and ambitious contribution to global efforts toward attaining
the goals set by the international community to combat climate change.” (...) In the
context of sustainable development, the Fund will promote the paradigm shift
towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways providing
support to developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions
and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, taking into account the needs of
those developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate
change.”
The GCF provides technical and financial support to developing countries to build capacities
for systemic climate investment planning, catalysing innovation, mobilizing investments at
scale, and enhancing the capacity of wider national financial systems to mainstream climate
risks into decision-making. This helps to shift an increasing flow of finance toward investments
that limit or reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and assists developing countries adapt
to the impacts of climate change.
Since the inception of the GCF, the magnitude and urgency of the climate investment
challenge has become even clearer. The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that the window of opportunity for both mitigation and
adaptation action is narrowing, highlighting the imperative to shift from incremental to systemic
responses. In a challenging global macroeconomic environment, the imperative of “building
forward better” through interventions that simultaneously support climate action, economic
recovery and manage debt is clear. In this critical decade, the role of finance is key to unlocking
the potential of available technologies and solutions, and innovating new approaches,
ensuring that benefits can be accessed equitably by developing countries and reach the most
vulnerable.
GCF structure
The GCF is an operating entity of the financial mechanism of the UNFCCC, providing financial
support to enable Parties to meet the objectives of the Convention. The GCF receives
guidance from and reports back to the UNFCCC Conference of the Parties (COP). The GCF
also serves the Paris Agreement and the achievement of its objectives.
1 At the conclusion of the 34th GCF meeting, the GCF portfolio now comprises 209 projects and programmes and
stands at USD 11.3 billion in GCF resources or USD 42.4 billion with co-financing.
GREEN CLIMATE FUND 1

The GCF Governing Instrument as adopted by the UNFCCC COP in 2013, established the
GCF institutional structure, which includes:
a) The GCF Board, which oversees the operation of all relevant components of the Fund;
and
b) The GCF Secretariat, responsible for executing the day-to-day operations of the Fund,
whose divisions and teams perform functions related to project origination, development,
structuring, appraisal, and implementation.
The GCF Governing Instrument also establishes that the GCF will provide funding resources
for Readiness and preparatory activities, as well as technical assistance to enable countries
to access the Fund.
GCF business model
The GCF operates through a partnership-based business model. GCF funds are channelled
through international, regional, and national organizations in developed and developing
countries. Government entities, public, private, and multilateral financial institutions,
international organizations, bilateral agencies, non-governmental organizations, and private
sector firms can channel the financial resources provided by the GCF to developing countries.
Those entities that wish to channel GCF funds for climate change investments go through
accreditation processes to demonstrate that they have the capacities to design, implement
and monitor GCF funds. As Accredited Entities (AEs), these organizations work together with
countries’ National Designated Authorities (NDAs) or Focal Points. NDAs or Focal Points are
government institutions that serve as the interface between each country and the Fund. By
working with NDAs, AEs ensure that GCF financing goes to activities aligned with national
climate change priorities.
AEs can be either Direct Access Entities (DAEs) or International Access Entities (IAEs). DAEs
are sub-national, national, or regional organizations that need to be nominated by developing
country NDAs or Focal Points. IAEs can include United Nations agencies, multilateral
development banks, international financial institutions, and regional institutions. IAEs do not
need to be nominated by developing country NDAs or Focal Points.
Delivery Partners (DPs) are institutions capable of implementing Readiness activities. They
are nominated by NDAs or Focal Points to prepare and implement activities under the
Readiness Programme. Potential DPs can be the NDAs themselves, an AE, or another
organization capable of implementing technical assistance and capacity-development grants.
GCF Strategic Plan
This section will be subject to revision following the adoption of the Updated Strategic Plan
for 2024–2027, scheduled for B.36 (July 2023).
The GCF Strategic Plan sets out the long-term strategic vision for the Fund, as well as strategic
objectives and programming directions for the current programming period. The Fund’s initial
strategic plan for the Initial Resource Mobilization period operated between 2015–2019. The
current Updated Strategic Plan was adopted at B.27 in 2020, covering the first replenishment
period (GCF-1, 2020–2023). The Strategic Plan is currently under review in advance of the
second GCF replenishment period (GCF-2, 2024–2027) and is expected to be updated by the
Board at B.36.
The Board’s long-term strategic vision for the GCF is to promote a paradigm shift towards
low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways in the context of sustainable
2 GREEN CLIMATE FUND

development and to support developing countries in the implementation of the UNFCCC and
the Paris Agreement. The GCF helps strengthen developing countries’ capacities to translate
their NDCs, NAPs and other climate strategies into concrete interventions and bankable
investments that are, in turn, able to catalyse innovation and mobilize finance at increasing
scale for adaptation and mitigation action in line with the goals set out in the UNFCCC and the
Paris Agreement.
The 2020–2023 Strategic Plan, in conjunction with the updated GCF Investment Framework,
both direct GCF programming toward the following strategic objectives over GCF-1:
a) Greater mitigation and adaptation impact for developing countries compared with the Initial
Resource Mobilization (IRM) period while strengthening country ownership and capacity
to identify, design and implement projects and programmes:
• Deliver portfolio-level mitigation and adaptation results that exceed portfolio IRM
results; and
• Support developing countries in translating their NDCs, ACs, NAPs and long-term
national strategies into transformational investment strategies and project pipelines
informed by the goals in the Paris Agreement.
b) Balanced funding across mitigation and adaptation over time, as well as using minimum
allocation floors as appropriate in allocating resources for adaptation, taking into account
the urgent and immediate needs of developing countries that are particularly vulnerable to
the adverse effects of climate change, including LDCs, SIDS and African States;
c) Scaled up funding for ambitious projects informed by countries’ adaptation needs and
mitigation potential, in line with their climate plans and strategies, recognising the urgency
to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement;
d) Significantly increased funding channelled through DAEs relative to the IRM;
e) Significantly increased portfolio level mobilization achieved through the GCF contributions
to private sector projects under the PSF, relative to the IRM;
f) Balanced GCF risk appetite across all results areas; and
g) Improved speed, predictability, simplified access, efficiency, effectiveness, and
transparency.
The four Strategic Priorities for 2020–2023 that set the overall direction for the operations of
the GCF are described below.
1) Strengthening country ownership of programming
2020-2023 GCF strategic programming will be oriented toward building developing
countries capacity to undertake transformational planning and programming, incorporating
broad-based stakeholder engagement, and helping DAEs play a stronger role in GCF
programming. The Readiness Programme can directly support all of these actions,
including through the preparation of Country Programmes (CPs), that help identify top
priority project ideas, preferred AEs and ways to mobilize potential sources of finance.
2) Fostering a paradigm-shifting portfolio
2020-2023 GCF strategic programming will be oriented toward helping developing
countries and their implementing partners design projects and programmes that foster a
paradigm shift and exercising the risk appetite of GCF to demonstrate the viability of
innovative approaches. The Readiness Programme can support developing countries in
the upstream stages of originating paradigm-shifting project proposals up to CN stage.
3) Catalysing private sector finance at scale

The 2020-2023 GCF strategic programming aims at strengthening engagement of the

private sector in climate activities and de-risking investments to catalyse wider private
finance flows, including in adaptation. The Readiness Programme can support developing
countries in engaging private sector stakeholders, as well as help create enabling
environments and strengthen national financial systems.
4) Improving access to fund resources
To complement the GCF strategic programming described above, the GCF will continue
to build an AE network that is well-matched to countries’ programming priorities, including
strengthening the role of DAEs in programming. The Readiness Programme can support
candidate entities during pre- and post-accreditation in building capacity to engage in
climate programming.
GCF themes and result areas
The GCF aims to support paradigm shifts in both climate mitigation and climate adaptation
efforts, aiming for a fifty-fifty balance between mitigation and adaptation investments over time.
Eight results areas, with a potential to deliver substantial impact on mitigation and adaptation,
guide the GCF and its stakeholders when developing programmes and projects, while
respecting country needs and priorities.
Figure 1
The Board, in decision B.17/08, requested the Secretariat to undertake additional analysis to
identify specific results areas where targeted GCF investments would have the most impact.
As part of this mandate and in line with its work programme, the Secretariat has developed
ten sectoral guides across eight GCF results areas. The sectoral guides aim to provide a set
of tools to support the development of high-quality and impactful funding proposals for
consideration by the GCF Board. The sectoral guides explore GCF investment criteria for each
of the targeted sectors to help prepare proposals aligned with these criteria.
GCF Policies
GCF resources must be managed according to the Fund’s policies as explained below.
Country ownership

A core GCF principle is to follow a country-driven approach with developing countries leading
GCF programming and implementation. Country ownership is both a guiding principle and an
operational modality of the GCF.
NDAs or Focal Points play a key role in ensuring country ownership in the GCF project cycle,
including by recommending funding proposals to the GCF. NDAs or Focal Points also must
provide a no‐objection letter (NOL) to every submission of a CN or funding proposal prepared
by an AE to ensure consistency with national climate strategies and confirm the country-driven
approach.
Environmental and social considerations
The GCF Environmental and Social Management System is a broad operational framework
that allows the GCF to incorporate environmental and social considerations into its decision-
making. As part of this system, the GCF currently applies the International Finance
Corporation’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards as its interim Environmental
and Social Safeguards. Moreover, the GCF Revised Environmental and Social Policy
establishes how GCF integrates environmental and social issues into its processes and
activities.
The Policy intends to:
1) Avoid, and where avoidance is impossible, mitigate adverse impacts to people and the
environment;
2) Avoid, and where avoidance is impossible, mitigate the risks of sexual exploitation, sexual
abuse and sexual harassment to people impacted by GCF-financed activities;
3) Enhance equitable access to development benefits; and
4) Give due consideration to persons in vulnerable positions and situations and marginalized
populations, groups, and individuals.
Policy on Prohibited Practices
In addition, the Policy on Prohibited Practices is to be considered for GCF-funded activities to

ensure that individuals and counterparties uphold the highest standards of integrity.
Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism policy
The guiding principles of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of
Terrorism policy (AML/CFT Policy) as well as those of the AML/CFT Standards need to be
considered to prevent risks related to money laundering and financing of terrorism.
Gender-sensitive approach
According to its Governing Instrument, the GCF will take a gender-sensitive approach in
performing its activities. The Updated Gender Policy reinforces the responsiveness of GCF to
better address and account for the links between gender equality and climate change. The
Policy commits GCF to enhance gender equality in its day-to-day operations and promote the
goals of gender equality through its decisions on the allocation of funds, operations and impact
as outlined in the Gender Action Plan. The gender policy is to be complied with in all GCF-
funded activities, whether implemented by international, regional, national, or sub-national
public or private entities.

Indigenous Peoples
The importance of engaging with indigenous peoples in climate change actions has been
recognized by the COP. The Indigenous Peoples Policy and the associated Operational
Guidelines intend to ensure that GCF-funded activities are developed and implemented
fostering the full respect, promotion and safeguarding of indigenous peoples. Based on
internationally recognized instruments, the Policy intends that indigenous peoples benefit from
GCF-funded activities in a culturally appropriate manner and do not suffer adverse effects. For
this purpose, it sets a framework for anticipating and thus avoiding adverse impacts of GCF-
funded activities on indigenous peoples and, when not possible, minimize, mitigate, or
compensate them appropriately and equitably.
The Policy applies to all GCF-financed activities and to both public and private sector entities
whenever indigenous peoples are present in, have, or have had a collective attachment or
right to areas where GCF-financed activities will be implemented.
The Indigenous Peoples Policy highlights that NDAs and AEs may seek support through the
Readiness Programme and funding proposals for various initiatives, including (a) support for
the development priorities of indigenous peoples through programs, (such as community-
driven development programs) developed by governments in cooperation with indigenous
peoples; (b) preparation of participatory profiles of indigenous peoples to document their
culture, demographic structure, gender and intergenerational relations and social
organization, institutions, production systems, religious beliefs and resource-use patterns; and
(c) facilitating partnerships among the government, indigenous peoples organizations, civil
society organizations, and the private sector to promote the climate resiliency of indigenous
peoples communities.
The Indigenous Peoples Policy further identifies that GCF will support specific capacity-
building programs for indigenous peoples as part of Readiness proposals or funding proposals
to ensure their full and effective engagement with GCF at all levels. This support will include,
at a minimum, activities related to consultation, advocacy, institutional building for project
implementation and management, as well as the effective engagement of indigenous peoples
in the formulation of project proposals and monitoring and evaluation.
Finally, States and AEs, particularly DAEs, may request readiness support from GCF to
enhance their capacity to implement this Policy.
Stakeholder engagement
Country coordination and multi-stakeholder engagement are critical to enhance the social and
environmental outcomes of GCF-funded activities. Stakeholder engagement is a key
component of the Revised Environmental and Social Policy that applies to all activities
financed by the GCF and to both private and public sector Accredited Entities. The Policy
requires, among other things, that all projects/programmes be designed and implemented
after having integrated the voices of communities and individuals, as appropriate. Engaging a
wide range of stakeholders before, during and after the implementation of readiness support
is essential. NDAs and Focal Points are encouraged to undertake stakeholder engagement in
line with the GCF Sustainability Guidance Note on this topic that provides information on how
to meet the requirements for stakeholder engagement and relevant GCF policies.
Private sector
The GCF has adopted a Private Sector Strategy, setting out four pillars through which the
GCF aims to catalyse private climate finance in a country-driven manner to meet developing
countries’ needs and the objectives of the 2020–2023 Updated Strategic Plan.

Part II. Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme

The Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (RPSP or the “Readiness Programme”)
is the largest climate change capacity-building programme in the world. The Readiness
Programme can support a wide range of activities to help National Designated Authorities
(NDAs) or Focal Points, Direct Access Entities (DAEs) and other developing country
stakeholders to:
• Engage in the planning and design of bankable climate investments that reflect
national strategies and priorities; and
• Strengthen broader enabling environments and financial systems, helping them to
bring full funding proposals to the GCF – though readiness support is not a prerequisite
to this.
The Readiness Programme is one of three main GCF funding modalities, along with the
Project Preparation Facility (PPF) and funding for mitigation and adaptation investments
through funding proposals or Simplified Approval Proposals.
Readiness resources may be provided in the form of grants (up to USD 1 million per country
per year) or technical assistance, and each country may request up to a maximum of USD 3
million to support adaptation planning processes, including the formulation of national,
subnational, and sectoral adaptation plans. Since its inception in 2015, the Readiness
Programme has approved around 600 Readiness grants in 141 countries for a total of
approximately US$ 400 million.2
All developing country Parties to the UNFCCC can access the Readiness Programme. The
GCF aims to commit at least 50 per cent of the resources allocated by the Board to particularly
vulnerable countries, including least developed countries (LDCs), small island developing
States (SIDS), and African States.
With eight years of Readiness Programme operations, and a GCF-funded activity portfolio
now exceeding USD 11 billion in GCF commitments with a total asset value of over USD 40
billion, the Fund has been able to incorporate learning from its programming results,
operational experience, and stakeholder perspectives into this new, enhanced edition of the
Readiness and Preparatory Support Guidebook. The Guidebook aims to be a user-friendly
document providing enhanced guidance to NDAs, Focal Points and DAEs on how to make the
most effective use of Readiness support to advance the translation of national climate
strategies into a flow of bankable climate investments, making the process for submission,
approval, and implementation of proposals clearer and more efficient.
Readiness Programme strategy and objectives
This section is subject to the adoption of the revision of the Readiness Strategy currently
undergoing consultation. The revised Readiness Strategy is scheduled to be presented to
the Board at B.36 (July 2023). The section will be updated accordingly.
The current Readiness Programme Strategy was adopted at B.22 (2019) and has been
extended by the Board through to 2023 (Decision B.33/04). This is a results-orientated
strategy that supports countries to approach readiness strategically to increase capacity to
2 These figures refer to GCF readiness grants approved by October 2022.

plan and implement high impact projects and programmes aligned with NDCs, NAPs and other
national climate change strategies.
The Readiness Programme strategy provides broad and flexible scope for developing
countries to pursue activities that aim to achieve one or more of the following five objectives
and related outcomes. Readiness Programme results are measured against specific
outcomes under each objective under the Readiness Results Management Framework
(RRMF) (see table 1).
The GCF is in the process of updating the Readiness Strategy for the period 2024–2027.
Table 1. Objectives and outcomes of the Readiness Programme
Objectives Outcomes
Objective 1: Capacity Building Outcome 1.1 Country NDA or Focal Points and the network/ systems
that enable them to fulfil their roles, responsibilities and policy
requirements are operational and effective
GCF recipient countries and
relevant stakeholders set up Outcome 1.2 Direct access applicants and accredited entities (DAEs)
adequate systems – human, have established capacity to meet and maintain the GCF’s
technical and institutional accreditation standards; and accredited DAEs have the capacity to
– that enables them to fulfil develop a pipeline of projects and effectively implement GCF-funded
their roles and responsibilities activities
towards the GCF and enhance
their ability to achieve their Outcome 1.3 Relevant country stakeholders (which may include
objectives executing entities, civil society organizations and private sector) have
established adequate capacity, systems, and networks to support the
planning, programming and implementation of GCF-funded activities
Objective 2: Strategic Frameworks Outcome 2.1 GCF recipient countries have developed Country
Programmes to guide GCF investment and
programming of readiness support resources
GCF recipient countries develop
robust strategic frameworks
to guide GCF investment in Outcome 2.2 GCF recipient countries have developed or enhanced
complementarity other climate strategic frameworks to address policy gaps, improve sectoral
financiers expertise, and enhance enabling environments for GCF programming
in low-emission investment
Outcome 2.3 Entity Work Programmes of accredited direct access

entities developed, that are aligned with the priorities of the countries,
including Country Programmes and the GCF result areas
Outcome 2.4 Strategies for transforming and attracting private sector

investment for low emissions and resilience developed and being
used
Objective 3: National Adaptation Outcome 3.1 Adaptation planning governance and institutional
Plans and Adaptation Planning coordination strengthened
Processes
GCF recipient countries establish
integrated adaptation planning and Outcome 3.2 Evidence basis produced to design adaptation
monitoring systems to enable climate solutions for maximum impact
resilience across sectors, as well as
strengthen impact and catalyse the
scale of public and private adaptation Outcome 3.3 Private sector engagement in adaptation catalysed
finance, based on strong climate

rationale and active stakeholder

engagement Outcome 3.4 Adaptation finance increased
Objective 4: Pipeline Development Outcome 4.1 An increase in the number of quality project Concept
Notes developed and submitted
Emanating from strategic frameworks
and entity work programmes, a
transformational pipeline developed of Outcome 4.2 An increase in the number of quality funding proposals
quality Concept Notes and funding developed and submitted from accredited DAEs
proposals, including LDCs, SIDS and
African states, and direct access Outcome 4.3 An increase in the number of quality project Concept
accredited entities Notes developed and submitted that target SIDS, LDCs and African
states
Outcome 4.4 An increase in the number of quality funding proposals

developed and submitted that target SIDS, LDCs and African states
Outcome 4.5 An increase in the proportion of PPF requests and

funding proposals approved as a result of Readiness and Preparatory
Support
Objective 5: Knowledge sharing and Outcome 5.1 Best practices with respect to institutional capacity
learning building and coordination, direct access, and pipeline development
are developed and disseminated to strengthen engagement by NDA,
GCF recipient countries have benefited DAEs, and delivery partners with the GCF
from increased levels of awareness,
knowledge sharing and learning that
contribute to their developing and
implementing transformational projects
in low-carbon and climate-resilient Outcome 5.2 Partnerships established to foster development and
development pathways dissemination of methods, frameworks, and information systems for
enhanced climate finance programming at subnational, national, and
regional levels
Climate finance, country needs and the Readiness Programme
The GCF is the world’s largest climate fund, mandated to promote a paradigm shift towards
low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways in developing countries. The GCF
aims to support developing countries to realize and raise the ambitions expressed in their
NDCs/NAPs/LTS towards low-emission and climate-resilient pathways.
How can the GCF help countries realize their ambitions? The Readiness Programme aims
at enhancing the capacity of national institutions to translate their NDCs/NAPs into bankable
climate investments and attract climate financing, thereby empowering the country.
NDAs and other partners have identified a need to better sequence and target Readiness
support toward known capacity gaps and programming outcomes. This need was also
identified by the Second Performance Review (SPR2023) by the GCF Independent Evaluation
Unit that found that the Readiness Programme is not being systematically targeted to the
highest priority areas to meet both country and GCF goals and needs more clearly prioritized
objectives and stronger feedback mechanisms.
Furthermore, reliance on Delivery Partners means that the support requested may not
necessarily be aligned with country priorities. The types of support requested are ultimately
what the DP are capable of or interested in providing and linkages to urgent country needs
are uncertain.

Programming support is needed at a variety of critical intervention points: accessing

downscaled climate information and emission profiles/projections; systems-level feasibility
studies; analyses for investment planning, selection and design; drafting Concept Notes and
funding proposals; policy implementation and climate result management. The Readiness
Programme and PPF should be seamlessly integrated to help deliver at these junctures.
NDAs and partners have noted a lack of coordination between programming efforts led by
AEs and by the countries themselves, with issues arising when Country Programmes and
Concept Notes prepared with support from Readiness grants do not lead to bankable projects
that have strong support from AEs and are fully aligned with core GCF principles and policies,
including country ownership.
To address these concerns, the updated GCF Strategic Plan for 2024–2027 (zero draft) sets
out a plan to support developing countries to shift from implementing climate strategies (i.e.
NDCs, Adaptation Communications, NAPs, and LTS) through standalone projects to more
integrated, systemic, country-owned responses. This change is due to the nature of
standalone projects as they may not optimize financing, may only achieve incremental and
short-lived impacts, may not be cost-effective and may be maladaptive over the long term.
National plans, trade-offs and synergies across mitigation/adaptation and sectors and
geographies would be examined to develop projects and programmes targeting systemic
transitions in line with the advice of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Helping developing countries deploy climate risk, vulnerability and feasibility assessments
early in the design process and at systems level rather than on a project-by-project basis not
only empowers the countries to completely understand climate risks and to prioritize
interventions, but also offers the potential to move well-designed proposals more quickly
through the Fund’s investment process. Figure 1 contains a visual representation of the shift
between a standalone project model (on the left) and the systemic model (on the right).
Figure 1. Shifting the model for NDC/NAP implementation and investment planning
The following section aims at providing guidance to NDAs and DPs on improving Readiness
(how to be “ready”) by building the capacities and information needed to access GCF and
other financial resources, empower the countries to develop a long-term, strategic approach
to GCF and other resources, and realize their NDC/NAP/LTS ambitions.

Climate investment planning framework
The international climate change landscape has evolved significantly since the establishment
of the Readiness Programme. Implementation of the Paris Agreement has commenced, the
Paris Agreement Rulebook was approved, and most Parties have submitted a second or
updated NDC, with many of them having also presented ACs, NAPs and LTS. In addition, the
first Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement is underway, and Parties are preparing to comply
with the Enhanced Transparency Framework.
In this context, the Readiness Programme aims to orient readiness support more clearly
toward helping developing countries implement their NDCs/NAPs/ACs over successive
ambition cycles. To this end, the Secretariat has developed a framework illustrated in figure 2
showing progressive steps that developing countries can take to move from planning for the
implementation of their NDCs/NAPs/ACs into identifying, designing and implementing climate
investment projects.
The framework will allow countries to identify their capacity needs for NDC/NAP/AC
investment planning and deploy tailored readiness support to address such needs. This
framework is meant to provide guidance on how countries could structure their investment
planning, including from private sector sources, and focus their support needs across the
board, including from GCF and non-GCF sources. Countries are, of course, not bound by the
steps of this framework but should be able to apply it flexibly in accordance with country
contexts and ensure coherence with the efforts that have already taken place and are ongoing.
Figure 2: Climate investment planning framework
Figure 2 depicts the different support modalities offered by GCF either through readiness
grants under the five objectives of the Readiness Programme, or through the PPF to support
the development of funding proposals, and it illustrates the type of activities that can be
supported with GCF resources throughout the six steps of the framework. The framework also
illustrates that building the climate and financial evidence throughout these steps is
progressive, in that readiness support may become difficult to plan under step 3 if, for instance,
the climate information is incomplete under step 2. It should be noted that the activities listed
in this graphic are indicative examples under each step when building a country’s systemic
climate plan and are not meant to limit readiness outputs.

As part of its 2023 work programme, the Secretariat will develop climate investment planning
guidance based on the framework in figure 2. The guidance will facilitate access to readiness
resources by serving as a reference for countries on the specific activities on which the
Readiness Programme could focus on, deliver a systemic view of NDC/NAP implementation
requirements and exploring the climate investment landscape beyond what the GCF can
support, empowering countries to prioritize their investment decisions and choose the right
financial partner. For instance, a Readiness Programme proposal could be devised so that it
would take stock of the climate evidence available in a country or territory, such as risk and
vulnerability assessments or emissions scenarios, propose outcomes to fill any gaps, conduct
analyses on the potential programming, and determine the most appropriate financial partners.
By planning the use of readiness resources more strategically, countries are then better
informed to design their climate finance pipeline.
The climate investment planning guidance will build off the description of the steps below:
Step 1: Implementation Planning for Nationally Determined Contributions and National

Adaptation Plans While embarking on national development planning, countries integrate
climate change goals through their NDCs, NAPs and LTS. Readiness activities can help
support this process by strengthening institutional capacities and creating enabling
environments. Readiness can support:
a) NDA strengthening: Helping countries to increase NDA human and technical capacity to
fulfil the role of the NDA, which includes coordination, stakeholder engagement,
programming and priority setting, and increasing complementarity and coherence of
climate finance flows. The NDA is engaged with other climate and sustainable
development Focal Points across ministries and subnational governments, as well as with
the private sector and civil society. The coordination mechanism includes ministries,
subnational governments, and other providers of climate finance, including the donor
community (RPSP objective 1).
b) Long-term strategies, NDCs, NAPs: Countries can leverage Readiness support to
develop, enhance or update key climate change strategic documents such as the
LTS/NDCs (RPSP objective 2) and the NAP (RPSP objective 3) following inclusive
stakeholder engagement and with high-level political support.
c) Setting up the enabling policy and institutional environment: Support countries in
ensuring that the national policy regime addresses specific risks and opportunities
regarding climate change with a legal and institutional framework to address these. These
could set up monitoring, reporting and verification systems for climate finance flows, or
identify and assess scaling-up investments with the objective of removing barriers through
improved sectoral policies, incentives, and other measures (RPSP objective 2).
d) NDAs, Focal Points, DAEs and local private sector actors: Better quantification of
climate risks and identify climate-friendly business opportunities (RPSP objectives 2 and
5).
Step 2: Evidence-based option identification is meant to perform systems-level analysis to

identify the transformations and key interventions needed to answer two questions: How will
climate change impact my country? What mitigation opportunities exist?
Readiness can support:
a) Country level climate change risk and vulnerability assessments: Support countries
to develop evidence through country level climate change risk and vulnerability
assessments, inter alia, to understand the impacts of climate change on a country (RPSP
objectives 2 and 3).

b) GHG emissions scenarios: Support countries to establish GHG emissions scenarios that
provide an indication of priority GHG emission sources given assumptions on policies and
socioeconomic conditions, and help prioritize mitigation opportunities. This can be
accompanied by a common practice analysis, a study of the extent to which a proposed
technology or practice has already been diffused in the relevant sector and region (RPSP
objective 2).
Step 3: Climate Investment planning This next step should focus on determining
requirements for system level transformation to put the country on a path to meet its NDC/NAP
targets. The evidence base built under Step 2 should be considered to focus climate specific
investments, analyse solutions for barriers and comparative advantages of different financiers,
prioritize and sequence programmes of investments, and determine the GCF’s role and those
investments that are better suited by other financiers.

a) Systemic financial planning: Support countries through assessments of financial needs
and options (private/blended/public), barrier and investment analysis for systemic financial
planning (RPSP objective 2).
b) Mainstream GCF policies and approaches (gender policy, ESS, IP): Country
Programmes and Entity Work Programmes (RPSP objective 2) should include GCF
policies and approaches.
c) Capacity of nominated or accredited Direct Access Entities: Conduct an institutional
gap analysis of the nominated entities against GCF policies, build and maintain the
capacity of nominated or accredited Direct Access Entities in relation to GCF-funded
activities in areas such as GCF gender policy; ESS, etc. (RPSP objectives 1 and 2).
Step 4: GCF and Non-GCF Planning With activities undertaken under Steps 2 and 3,
countries should have a clear direction on priority adaptation and mitigation interventions and
on their optimised systemic financial planning. Under Step 4, the country should be well
informed about what finance sources are optimised for each of the interventions and should
now be able to decide on the optimal pathway to access climate finance, be it unrelated to
GCF through public finance, private sector finance or even market offset mechanisms, or with
the various financial instruments of the GCF. In this step, a pipeline of Concept Notes for the
GCF should also become clear and be backed up by the evidence from steps 1 and 2.
a) Preparation of a Country Programme (CP): CPs are a powerful display of country
ownership, as they translate and prioritize countries’ climate priorities for NDC
achievement. The Secretariat would like to see CPs that have a more focused pipeline of
project and programme ideas premised on the climate investment framework, informed by
country priorities, and that can be realistically supported by the different GCF pipeline
development tools and windows towards project approval. Once the climate evidence base
(step 2) is robust and informs climate investment planning (step 3), countries will have
developed investment plans depicting the country’s investment priorities to achieve its
long-term climate and development goals. These plans will include an analysis of financial
sources, shedding clarity on which financial sources - be it private sector, carbon markets,
international or other public finance - are best suited to partner with. Ideally, the Country
Programme will be developed once this framework is ready, focusing specifically on those
investments to be undertaken by GCF, identifying co-investing opportunities, and
informing concept note and funding proposal development.
b) Promotion of greater engagement between governments and the private sector:
Increase the private sector’s contribution towards achieving national climate goals by
policy de-risking to unlock private sector finance. This will require identifying policy and

regulatory barriers preventing private sector financing and addressing these policy and
regulatory gaps to improve the bankability of the NDC/NAP project pipeline. (RPSP
objective 2).
c) Identifying financial mechanisms: Catalysing private funds and increasing access to
long-term affordable finance through these mechanisms. This could include supporting
countries to develop policies and strategies such as carbon pricing, integrated climate and
green finance road maps, climate risk disclosure, valuing positive externalities of climate
action and development of an appropriate private sector investment strategy driven by
local circumstances (RPSP objective 2).
d) Greening the financial sector: Given their role in national policymaking, NDA
engagement in creating a climate-aligned financial sector is crucial. There are many
options for using readiness funding toward this goal, selecting the relevant activities will
depend on country priorities and the level of climate finance capacity already existing
within the country. Such activities may include: (i) building green finance knowledge and
capacity of financial sector stakeholders; (ii) issuing green finance guidelines to be
adopted either voluntarily or mandatorily by the financial sector; (iii) developing central
bank policies that promote green investments from the financial sector; and (iv) developing
green financial products, institutions, and markets such as national green banks or
exchanges. For further details please refer to annex 2 of this RPSP Guidebook.
e) Identification and consultation process for defining the pipeline of Concept Notes
for the GCF and developing high-level quality Concept Notes: Support countries to
identify a pipeline of projects and programmes for the GCF in consultation with national
stakeholders. The Readiness Programme can support the development of project ideas,
the preparation of Concept Notes up to the pre-feasibility stage, the identification of
suitable Accredited Entities, and the submission of the Concept Note to GCF (RPSP
objective 4). For further information on GCF Project Cycle and the approval process,
please refer to GCF Programming Manual and for the diligence processes that GCF uses
for the revisions of CNs and Funding Proposals please refer to GCF Appraisal Guidance.
Project Development Technical Assistance support under the Readiness Programme is
also available to the NDA or the DAE to further refine the Concept Notes for submission
to the GCF. This service consists of a roster of project development experts available to
DAEs to provide technical guidance on the formulation of Concept Notes before this is
presented to the GCF Secretariat’s climate investment committee.
Step 5: Funding proposal development Once the Concept Note is submitted, the GCF
Secretariat Investment Committee assesses it against investment criteria then proceeds to
funding proposal development., The GCF can support the development of the proposal
package through its Project Preparation Facility (PPF) to seek approval by the Board. More
information on this modality is available at: PPF.
Step 6: Implementation and monitoring During implementation of the GCF-funded activity,

entities and countries can track financial flows, undertake performance analytics and generate
evidence that can feed into NDC/NAP formulation. Typically, grants and fees included in the
funding proposal have been earmarked for this but resources from the Readiness Programme
can help support project and programme implementation, evaluation and reporting.
The Readiness Programme can support:
a) Countries in the implementation and monitoring of GCF projects and programmes
by enhancing the capacity of Accredited Entities to implement GCF projects and
programmes according to GCF policies (RPSP objectives 1 and 2).
b) Building the capacity, systems, and networks of national and regional stakeholders
to implement GCF-funded activities (RPSP objective 1).

c) Enhancing knowledge sharing and learning with respect to pipeline development, and
project and programme implementation and monitoring among Accredited Entities for
enhanced climate finance programming at subnational, national, and regional levels
(RPSP objective 5).
During the first few years of operations of the GCF, it was observed that the typical approach
to accessing GCF finance was to go from NDC Planning (Step 1) directly to Concept Note
development or even funding proposals as stand-alone projects (Steps 4 and 5), skipping
essential steps and resulting in funding proposals that often lacked complete climate evidence
and systemic financial planning ultimately leading to frustrations from both AEs and countries.
Climate investment planning described above provides a framework to achieve
transformative, integrated, systemic, country-owned climate investment planning and shows
how readiness can be deployed to inform this process. Although this RPSP Guidebook
provides an overarching description of investment planning and how to identify readiness
needs, it is not meant to overburden the reader with excessive detail at this stage.
Furthermore, the readiness activities identified in these steps are not comprehensive and are
only indicative.
Following these steps is not a requirement to accessing GCF resources. Countries can
submit Concept Notes without following a climate investment plan, or even without accessing
support from the Readiness Programme. Further information on the GCF project cycle and
project development tools for full-size projects is available in the GCF Programming Manual.3
This manual is supplemented by the GCF Appraisal Guidance,4 a comprehensive guide to the
tools and due diligence processes used to review and assess Concept Notes and funding
proposals for presentation to the GCF Board.
To comply with GCF investment criteria, submissions would have to be based on climate and
financial evidence that is prepared for the specific CN and that may lack a more systemic
perspective. In the long term, however, countries should strive to access support from the
Readiness Programme to put all the pieces into place to empower them to have complete
knowledge of the country’s climate change impacts and to be able to structure project ideas
that maximise results. The IPCC recently noted in its Sixth Assessment Report that an
incremental approach to adaptation and mitigation planning can potentially waste scarce
resources. Countries that undertake such a planning exercise will be better able to
conceptualize and communicate to all national stakeholders and external partners the crucial
transformational initiatives that will achieve their long-term climate priorities in line with Articles
2.1(c) and 4.1 of the Paris Agreement. They will have also produced a powerful business case
for climate investment by the GCF and other sources of climate finance through linkage of
their NDCs, sectoral strategies, investment plans and Country Programmes.
The most important point to remember from this part of the Guidebook is that the Readiness
Programme is designed to be a flexible tool and, as such, readiness support can be
customized by each country according to its readiness needs. Lists of indicative eligible and
ineligible activities are presented in annexes 4 and 5 respectively. Countries are encouraged
to develop readiness support requests based on defined needs in complementarity with
previous or ongoing initiatives and in alignment with the national vision for climate action.
Readiness support available
The Readiness Programme has two financing windows:
3 GCF Programming Manual https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/programming-manual

4 GCF Appraisal Guidance https://www.greenclimate.fund/document/appraisal-guidance

Table 2
1. Annual Readiness (USD 1 million dollars per country, per year) 5
Each country may request up to USD 1 million per year for activities related to institutional
capacity-building, coordination, policy and planning, and programming for investment.
Under the annual cap, countries can request resources under five modalities:
Direct support to NDAs NDAs or Focal Points may request up to USD 300,000
per year in direct support to help establish or strengthen
their capacities to facilitate access to GCF resources.
(Annex 6).
Single country NDAs or Focal Points can submit single country

proposals for up to USD 1 million and for a maximum
duration of 36 months to implement activities under one
or several of the Readiness objectives listed in table 1,
excluding objective 3 on adaptation planning.
Multi-country/regional NDAs or Focal Points can submit proposals with activities

in multiple countries. These proposals are accounted
against each participating country’s annual cap of USD 1
million. Regional or multi-country proposals may seek
support for activities under any of the Readiness
objectives listed in table 1, with the exception of objective
3. One NDA or Focal Point from one of the participating
countries must be nominated as the lead NDA for the
regional or multi-country Readiness Programme
proposal.
Multiple-year Readiness proposal NDAs or Focal Points can submit multiple-year strategic
single-country proposals for up to USD 3 million and a
maximum duration of 36 months, provided that the
budget of the proposal in each year remains within the
annual cap of USD 1 million. Multiple-year Readiness
proposals may seek support for activities under any of
the Readiness objectives listed in table 1, except for
objective 3.
2. Adaptation Planning6
Each country may request up to a maximum of USD 3 million to support adaptation planning
processes, including the formulation of national, subnational and sectoral adaptation plans.
Adaptation Planning Readiness proposals can only include activities under Readiness
objective 3 listed in table 1.
5For a proposal to be accounted under a country’s annual cap of USD 1 million the proposal needs to be approved
before 31 March of the subsequent year. For example, proposals approved before 31 March 2024, would be
counted towards 2023 allocations for a given country. There is no deadline to submit proposals, but proposals are
processed on a first-come, first-served basis, therefore it is highly recommended that proposals are submitted as
early as possible in a given year.
6Each country has a maximum of USD 3 million under this objective. There is not a yearly deadline for submitting
Adaptation planning readiness proposals; they are being submitted and processed on a rolling basis.

3. Project Development Technical Assistance (PDTA)
Under the Readiness Programme, PDTA support is available to further develop CNs. This
service consists of a roster of project development experts and/or firms available to
NDAs/DAEs to provide technical guidance including on the formulation of CNs prior to their
submission to the GCF climate investment committee (CIC). NDAs are invited to discuss the
availability of PDTA with GCF Regional Desks.
Readiness Results Management Framework
The Secretariat developed the Readiness Results Management Framework (RRMF) based
on lessons learned from the implementation of the Readiness Programme. As the Readiness
portfolio has grown and evolved, so has the need to monitor and measure its results. The
Secretariat, in February 2022, finalized and approved the RRMF to track and measure the
portfolio results against the five objectives supporting the implementation of the Readiness
strategy. The RRMF allows the Fund and its partners to design the result-based Readiness
interventions and better capture the results of the Readiness Programme in a consistent and
coherent manner while supporting countries in their move towards more efficient access to
climate finance.
The RRMF serves two key purposes: (1) to provide a forward-looking, fit-for-purpose system
to monitor and track results of Readiness grants, and to assess their contribution to the five
Readiness strategic objectives and the overall impact of the Readiness Programme; and (2)
to provide an analytical framework to assess the existing Readiness portfolio and extract
lessons for further improvement of the Programme.
The RRMF is guided by five core principles:
i) Alignment with Board decisions on the five strategic objectives of the Readiness
Programme;
ii) Simplicity and standardization in tracking results in the Readiness portfolio;
iii) Clear logical mapping between different levels of the results chain (objectives/impacts,
outcomes, and outputs);
iv) Clear roles and responsibilities of DP, NDA and the GCF Secretariat in data collection
and monitoring of the defined results and indicators; and
v) Flexibility for both retroactive and forward-looking applications.
The RRMF is based on the concept of a logic model that demonstrates how activities are
converted to changes in the form of immediate results (outputs), how the achieved outputs
contribute to intended intermediate results (outcomes), and how the intended outcomes
contribute to realizing an intervention’s ultimate changes (impact). The RRMF architecture
thus presents both the result statements and indicators for the three result levels, which is
required to monitor and track progress in full alignment to the five Readiness objectives.

Figure 3 RRMF Structure
The RRMF strictly follows the definitions of the five Readiness objectives and 18 outcomes as
per Board decisions. In addition, the RRMF defined a set of 50 standardized output statements
that will be used verbatim in the development of the logical frameworks of a Readiness
proposal. The RRMF also defines a set of mandatory result indicators for these three result
levels (impact, outcomes, and outputs) that will allow aggregability and comparability of the
RPSP portfolio results, while also proving a framework that allows for standardized results
tracking and assessment.
Given the urgent needs to rollout the RRMF, and its relevance for NDA/DP to prepare GCF
Readiness Proposals, including the logical framework, and reports, NDA/DP should be well
equipped with comprehensive understanding of the RRMF grant output-level Indicator
Reference Sheet (IRS) accessible online and also enclosed in this RPSP Guidebook as annex
7. This RRMF grant output-level IRS provides clear definition of each indicator for which
NDA/DP will need to consider and use in the Readiness Proposal’s logical framework. This
IRS also explains in what condition each relevant indicator should be selected and why, and
what need to be reported and captured per indicator, and how. The full RRMF Results
Handbook which will include the RRMF grant output-level IRS, output-portfolio level IRS, as
well as the indicator reference sheets for outcome and impact level will be published for
reference at a later stage.
During the development of a Readiness proposal, NDAs and DPs are required to consult the
RRMF thoroughly particularly the RRMF grant output-level IRS when selecting objectives,
outcomes and outputs and relevant indicators from the RRMF. As the RRMF aims to ensure
standardization of results tracking, NDAs and DPs cannot modify the result statements or
indicator definitions and/or add new indicators. However, to meet country-specific contexts,
NDAs and DPs still have flexibility to select only those objectives, outcomes, outputs, and the
RRMF grant output-level indicators from the RRMF that are relevant to them, and to identify
strategic actions/activities to address the identified barriers. The identified set of brief activities
shall be included in the Logical framework section of the Readiness proposal. Additionally,
during the monitoring of Readiness grants, NDAs and DPs are required to monitor and report
the progress against RRMF grant output-level results as per the targets set for each indicator.
As part of RRMF requirements, the Secretariat will periodically conduct portfolio level
aggregation of the output data to assess Readiness portfolio performance. Furthermore, the
Secretariat will initiate and execute at regular intervals (e.g. every two years) outcome and
impact level results assessments with support from the NDA and DP.
The RRMF implementation will be supported by dedicated training and guidance documents
that will include the RRMF result handbook containing an indicator reference sheet, as well as
tailored training modules.

Part III. Readiness grant cycle
The GCF is currently updating its internal standard operating procedures to boost operational
efficiencies in the business processes throughout the Readiness grant cycle. These
improvements will be documented and shared with external stakeholders in a subsequent
iteration of the Readiness Guidebook.
Table 3 summarizes the stages of the Readiness grant cycle, from proposal development and
origination until grant closure, showing the lead GCF division. Many other GCF divisions are
also involved throughout all the stages of the readiness grant cycle.
Table 3
Stage Lead GCF Division
Stage 1. Origination and Co-development DCP
Stage 2. Appraisal DCP triggers IDR involving IDR divisions 7
Stage 3. Approval DCP
Stage 4. Legal processing DCP
Stage 5. Monitoring for performance and compliance DPM
Stage 6. Adaptive management DPM
Stage 7. Evaluation, learning and grant closure DPM
7 The inter-divisional reviewers (IDR) include assigned representatives from the Office of the General Counsel
(OGC), the Division of Portfolio Management (DPM), the Division of Mitigation and Adaptation (DMA), the Private
Sector Facility (PSF), the Division of Support Services (DSS) including Finance and Procurement, the Office of the
Executive Director, and the Office of Risk Management and Compliance (ORMC).

Part IV. How-to guide for the GCF Readiness Proposal Template
This part of the Guidebook provides instructions on how to fill in each of the six sections of a
Readiness proposal. The GCF Readiness proposal template consists of three files (i) the Word
document with the narrative part of the proposal, divided in six sections, (ii) the macro-
embedded logframe template (section 4), and (iii) the Excel template (section 6).
The GCF Secretariat expects submitted proposals to have gone through (i) a quality control
check by the NDA and the DP prior to each submission and resubmission (if necessary) to
ensure that substantive issues are addressed throughout the review and appraisal of the
proposals; and (ii) a quality assurance process prior to submission and resubmissions to
ensure that grammatical, syntax, and formatting errors are addressed. This will facilitate and
increase the efficiency of the review and appraisal process by the GCF Secretariat.
Section 1. Summary (indicative maximum length: three pages)
Section 1 overview: The first section of the proposal includes basic information such as
participating country(ies), proposal title, duration, and budget. This section also provides a
brief summary of the proposal including the climate and institutional context of the participating
country(ies), the problem statement, the objective, expected outcomes and outputs. Since
summaries are published on the GCF website, they need to be informative and complete, but
brief.
Sub-section 1.1 Country(ies) submitting the proposal
Please include (i) the name of the institution that represents the NDA or Focal Point and (ii) all
contact information for the contact person for the NDA or Focal Point (full name, position,
contact information, and office address).
For regional or multi-country readiness proposals, please identify the lead NDA or Focal Point
for the proposal and list the NDA or Focal Points of all participating countries that have
confirmed their participation in the proposal and have submitted Letters of Financial Support
to that effect. Countries listed in section 1.1 must be the same as those shown on the cover
page of the Readiness proposal.
Do not forget to update this sub-section every time the proposal is revised and resubmitted if
any information has changed.
Sub-section 1.2 Date of initial submission
Please insert the date the proposal was first submitted by the NDA or Focal Point to the GCF
through the Fluxx platform. Ensure that the date provided in this sub-section matches the date
on the cover page of the Readiness proposal.
Sub-section 1.3 Last date of resubmission and version number
Please indicate the date and version of the most recent (re)submission to the GCF. Please
update this information every time the proposal is revised and resubmitted. Ensure that the
date and version provided in this sub-section match the information on the cover page of the
Readiness proposal.

Sub-section 1.4 Institution that will implement the Readiness grant
Please mark only one box. Only NDAs should tick the NDA box. All other organizations
(including GCF Accredited Entities) should tick the Delivery Partner (DP) box.
For Accredited Entities to GCF acting as a DP, please tick yes. If not accredited to GCF, please
tick the no box.
Please insert the name of the institution, the name of the official serving as Focal Point and
their position and contact details, including email, and full office mailing address. Please
ensure that the individual named as the DP Focal Point is authorized to submit requests for
support from the GCF by their institution.
NDAs are requested to confirm with the DP that they have technically cleared the proposal to
be submitted to the GCF.
Please also ensure that additional email addresses that need to be copied on correspondence
are listed in this sub-section and update accordingly with each proposal resubmission.
Sub-section 1.5 Title of the Readiness support proposal
Please indicate the proposal title. Ideally titles should be descriptive, including the name of the
country(ies) where the proposal will be implemented and details about the scope of the
proposal. Please use a proposal-specific title and avoid generic titles such as “First Readiness
Grant in Country ABC”). Good examples include: “Support to an enabling environment for the
development of a climate-resilient, low-carbon housing sector in Rwanda’s Secondary Cities”
and “Strengthening capacities to scale up climate financing in Colombia and development of
country-driven pre-feasibility studies for project formulation on adaptation finance”.
Sub-section 1.6 Readiness objectives of the proposal
1. Capacity-building
2. Strategic frameworks
3. Adaptation planning
4. Pipeline development
5. Knowledge sharing and learning
Please mark one or more of the objectives to which the Readiness proposal will contribute.
See table 1 above for Readiness Programme objectives, outcomes, and a non-exhaustive list
of indicative outputs.
Please note that for adaptation planning proposals, objective 3 is the only objective possible
(the box for this objective is only one that can be ticked). Other readiness support proposals
may feature outcomes and activities under multiple objectives (1, 2, 4, and/or 5). Please
ensure that this section aligns with the Objectives as per the proposal’s Logical Framework.

Table 4
Objectives Readiness support Maximum budget Implementation

period
1, 2, 4 and/or 5 Single-country annual Annual cap of USD 1 million Between 6 and 36

(including Direct support to per country months
NDA)
(Including USD 300,000 for
Direct support to NDA)
1, 2, 4 and/or 5 Multi-country/regional No total budget limit Between 12 and 36

annual support provided each participating months
country’s contribution is
within annual cap of USD 1
million per country
1, 2, 4 and/or 5 Multiple-year support 3 million dollars provided Between 12 and 36

that the annual value of the months
proposal remains within the
established annual cap of
USD 1 million per country
3 Adaptation-planning USD 3 million dollars per Between 12 and 36

support country months
Sub-section 1.7 Total requested amount and currency
Please provide the total requested amount in US dollars (USD) or euros (EUR). Please round
up to the nearest ten USD/EUR and make sure that the number provided here matches exactly
the total budget in the budget plan (section 6.1. of the Excel file), including the total budget for
outcomes, project management cost, contingency reserve, and DP fee.
Sub-section 1.8 Implementation period
Please indicate the expected duration for the implementation of grant activities in multiples of
six months (“2” would equal two periods of six months, or one year). The duration of the
activities listed here must be consistent with the scheduling of activities in the implementation
plan (section 6.3. of the Excel file).
Sub-section 1.9 Multiple-year strategic readiness implementation request
Please indicate if the request is submitted as a multiple-year strategic readiness proposal. For
more information on this modality, including submission guidance and prerequisites, please
refer to annex 9).
Please note that proposals for adaptation planning support (objective 3) cannot be submitted
as multiple-year strategic readiness proposals.
Sub-section 1.10 Brief summary of the request (maximum length: 500 words)
Please briefly describe the proposal including the elements described below. This summary
will be published on the GCF website and needs to be limited to 500 words. The summary will

be a short and concise resume of the same sections that will be described later in detail and
as such the brief summary should be aligned with the detailed description.
1) Climate background and institutional and policy context: Please describe the climate
background and context in the areas or sectors to be supported by the proposed readiness
support. Please also add a brief description of relevant policies, plans and institutional
arrangements that are relevant to the proposal and discuss how the proposed readiness
activities will contribute to strengthen them. Make sure to link the discussion to relevant
goals or provisions in NDCs, NAPs, Long-term Strategies and other key climate-related
policies, plans and strategies.
2) Problem statement: Please describe the problem that the Readiness Programme
proposal will address. Provide a short and concise statement of the problem and list the
barriers that the country(ies) need to overcome to solve the problem. Barriers listed in this
section must be further elaborated in the situation analysis (section 2) and incorporated in
the Theory of Change (section 3).
3) Goal and objectives: Please briefly explain the goal of the proposal and list the overall
objectives.
4) Direct and indirect beneficiaries: Please list the main direct and indirect beneficiaries of
the Readiness support. With relevant disaggregation, for example, by sex/gender,
stakeholder (government, private sector, civil society organization, indigenous peoples,
local communities, etc.).
Sub-section 1.11 List of abbreviations
Please include an alphabetical list of all abbreviations used in the proposal. Please include in
the text the full name and meaning of an abbreviation the first time it is used and thereafter
use the abbreviation.
Table 5
Abbreviation (alphabetical order) Meaning
Example: UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change
Section 2. Situation analysis (indicative maximum length: four pages)
Section 2 overview: A situation analysis provides a description of the specific context, problem,
challenges, and barriers that the Readiness proposal is intended to address. This section does
not include the proposed intervention. Please use the following sub-headings to organize this
section:
Sub-section 2.1. Country background and context
Please present the country background and context in the areas or sectors to be supported
by this readiness proposal (sustainable development and climate context). The sustainable
development context may include an overview of the country's socio-economic and priority
sectors/areas relevant for the readiness proposal, the importance of those sectors/areas to

the country’s economic and social development with emphasis on addressing the sustainable
development challenges in the country. The climate context may include an explanation of
climate stressors, related climate risks and vulnerabilities, and the magnitude of impact of
climate change at national and at sub-national level, including observed and projected trends
and how they affect the relevant areas and/or sectors identified as well as on sustainable
development.
Sub-section 2.2. Institutional and Policy Framework
i) Policy Framework
Please describe the climate change (and sector) policy context relevant to this readiness
proposal, including the climate change (and sector) policies, strategies, and/or related
assessments (e.g. NDCs, NAPs, National Adaptation Programmes of Action, Technology
Needs Assessments) for addressing climate change and sustainable development
challenges. This may include an overview of the planning, development, and/or
implementation status of those national climate change policies and/or strategies relevant for
the readiness proposal, the key national climate change and climate finance priorities
identified in the target priority sectors/areas and the alignment between national climate
change/climate finance priorities and sustainable development goals.
ii) Institutional Framework
Please describe the institutional framework, including government ministries and agencies,
responsible for planning, programming, and implementing climate change (and sector) and
sustainable development policies and plans that are relevant to the readiness proposal.
Please clarify the mandate/roles and the focus areas of those institutions in supporting the
implementation of national climate change priorities in the target priority sectors/areas as well
as enabling the engagement of civil society organizations, indigenous peoples, and local
communities.
Sub-section 2.3. Gender equality analysis
Please include a brief analysis on the gender equality condition of the country, and if available,
please explain how climate change has impacted people of different genders differently, in the
areas or sectors to be supported by this readiness proposal and how better gender equality
could contribute to the achievement of the proposal’s results. Where relevant, gender equality
should be considered in the proposed interventions and integrated into the readiness
proposal’s logical framework through identifying gender sensitive indicators as well as
providing gender disaggregated data.
Sub-section 2.4. Gaps and barriers
Please outline the gaps and barriers in the target sectors/areas that will be addressed by this
readiness proposal. The gaps and barriers may relate to climate context, including evidence-
based information to inform priorities, national/sectoral climate policies/plans/processes,
alignment of climate priorities with national sustainable development goals, and/or
human/institutional/technical capacities needed to support the planning, programming and
implementation of the policies, plans, processes as appropriate.

The barriers must match those that will be presented in the Theory of Change section, and
they should well justify for the proposed set of interventions for the readiness proposal. To
facilitate the review of the proposal, please number the gaps and barriers.
For each gap and/or barrier: (i) Provide a description of the specific deficiencies in the
national/sectoral climate policies, plans, processes, and human/institutional/technical
capacities that are to be overcome and/or factors that prevent progress or advancement
against the desired goal with a clear linkage to the country’s background and context, and the
Institutional and Policy Framework’s sub-sections above; (ii) Clarify the reasons why the gaps
and barriers persist and cannot be addressed without readiness support; and (iii) Describe the
needs that the readiness proposal will focus on in order to address the identified gaps and
barriers.
Sub-section 2.5. Problem statement
Please provide a concise statement (two or three sentences) that succinctly summarizes the
barriers described in earlier parts of the section that the proposed readiness support aims to
address. Usually, the problem statement should describe the main barriers to be addressed,
who is affected, and the impacts of the barriers on climate change actions in the
country/region. Based on the problem statement, the goal of this readiness proposal should
be established. The goal should be the ultimate and desired changes that this readiness
proposal aims to contribute to, but not what it will do or deliver. The proposed interventions
corresponding to the problem statement should be adequately articulated in the narrative
section of the Theory of Change (section 3) of the proposal.
Sub-section 2.6. Beneficiaries
Please describe the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the readiness proposal with relevant
disaggregation, for example, by sex/gender, stakeholder (government, private sector, civil
society organizations, indigenous peoples, local communities, etc.). Please ensure that the
outputs and activities are designed to directly or indirectly support the identified beneficiaries.
Sub-section 2.7. Stakeholder engagement
Please describe how different stakeholders have been consulted in identifying gaps,
challenges, and barriers and/or proposed solutions on the areas and/or sectors of the
readiness proposal.
Stakeholder engagement is needed to ensure that the chosen readiness proposal objectives
are fully aligned with country(ies) climate change plans/strategies and that input from the
consulted stakeholders are adequately captured in the proposed readiness support.
On the basis of an analysis of readiness proposals so far, promoting consultation processes
and ensuring the active involvement of stakeholders (e.g. civil society organizations,
indigenous peoples, local communities, the private sector and Direct Access Entities) for
country ownership and buy-in improves grant design and implementation. For example,
enhanced stakeholder engagement and participation in determining the national and sub-
national priorities for climate change actions proved to be essential to ensure that a Country
Programme identifies the main priorities across sectors.
In particular, civil society involvement at an early stage improves the likelihood that the grants
consider the interests of indigenous communities and minority groups. Private sector
involvement can also contribute to better implementation when private sector involvement is
essential to ensure impacts are achieved.

Enhanced stakeholder engagement can prove key by contributing to the increased sense of
ownership of all stakeholders.
Sub-section 2.8. Synergies and complementarity
Please discuss all other relevant GCF Readiness grants, including adaptation planning,
regional/multi-country proposals, and/or funding proposals that have been requested,
received, and/or is pending from GCF. Discuss other past and ongoing initiatives, including
initiatives supported by other development partners, that are relevant to the problem that the
readiness proposal will address, as well as key implementation challenges and lessons
learned relevant to this proposal. Elaborate on the potential synergies and complementarities
with those initiatives and discuss coordination mechanisms with those initiatives.
The information should be presented in a table format (see table 6) and include the proposal
titles and amounts in USD, objectives, and outputs/activities, implementing partners,
implementation status and period, synergies and complementarity with this proposal and key
implementation challenges and lessons learned relevant to this proposal.
Table 6
Details of Readiness Objectives and key Synergies and Key implementation

grants in the country results expected / Complementarities challenges and
(date of approval and delivered lessons learned
implementation
status/period, DP)
Example: … … …
Grant reference: MLI-
RS-001
Title: NDA
Strengthening,
including country
programming (SP,
NDA, CP)
Approved budget: USD

$41,165
Duration: XX months
(Start date / End date)
DP:
Section 3. Theory of change (indicative maximum length: three pages)
A Theory of Change (ToC) illustrates how a given intervention, or set of interventions, are
expected to lead to a specific development change drawing on a causal analysis based on
available evidence. In the Readiness Programme context, the ToC helps guide the

development of sound proposals aligned with the Readiness Results Management

Framework, with barriers, assumptions and risks clearly analysed and articulated. The ToC
section of the Readiness grant proposal consists of two parts.
3.1. Theory of Change – Diagram
The ToC diagram provides a visual representation of the proposal’s dynamic causal
relationship (vertical and horizontal) of the proposed interventions and results, and how they
interact with the identified barriers, risks, and assumptions.
Figure 4. Sample Theory of Change diagram template
3.2. Theory of Change – Narrative

The narrative part of the Theory of Change is the place where detailed interventions are
provided with an articulation of how the proposed readiness proposal’s goal, outcomes and
outputs will be achieved, and how the identified barriers will be addressed, and how
assumptions and risks are articulated. More precisely, the narrative part should explain how
the selected output results and identified barriers can be achieved through activity
implementation; how the achieved outputs will contribute to the desired outcomes; and how
the achieved outcomes will contribute to the proposal’s goal, giving particular attention to the
risks and analysis of the effects of assumptions on the achievement hypothesis.
The table below illustrate different levels of details/requirements for each element of the ToC
between the ToC-diagram and ToC-narrative parts.

Table 7
ToC Elements ToC-Diagram ToC-Narrative
Outcome and output Verbatims from the RRMF. Verbatims from the RRMF, plus the
statements contextualization of each outcome
and output.
Set of activities Optional, but if included, they Mandatory, and in full details.
have to be brief and concise:
What/who, when and where
only.
Barriers Brief and concise, and placed Clear explanation how each barrier
under the output part. will be addressed either under
explanation of output or activity
Risks Brief and concise, and placed Clear explanation if the risk related
after the barrier part with to the implementation of activities or
indication of relevance to either achievement of output or outcome,
activities or and detail how each risk will be
output(s)/outcome(s). mitigated. This has to be aligned
with the analysis provided under the
section 5.3.
Assumptions Brief and concise, and placed Clear explanation about the
after the risks barrier part with assumption, and if possible, using
indication of relevance, at least, previous experiences or lessons
to outcome(s). learned.
Causal effect Using arrows, vertically and Narrative description provided

relationship horizontally between and within the description of outcome,
across outcomes, outputs, output, activities. This description
activities, and barriers. needs to be consistent with the
relationship provided in the ToC-
diagram.
A ToC diagram is included above (see figure 4). In developing the ToC, the NDA/DP should
include arrows that clearly demonstrate the linkages to the various components of the ToC
including any vertical and horizontal linkages.
The development of a ToC requires a series of drafts before it is finalized. Once the initial draft
is formulated, it is important to review the linkages between the outputs, outcomes, and the
final goal, realigning them if necessary to ensure that all linkages have been captured, and
that the ToC logically presents how the goal cascades back to outcomes and outputs. In the
drafting of the ToC, for example, some outputs may be removed or replaced, and linkages
changed to establish a clear logical pathway.

Table 8 shows the key components of ToCs and provides guidance on key considerations
when developing the ToC diagram and narrative.
Table 8. Theories of Change elements
Five main elements of a Theory of Change (ToC)
1 Goal statement
A goal is the ultimate purpose of any Readiness Proposal to which the intervention will
contribute. The “goal statement” is formulated using an “If…then…because” structure,
illustrating the interactions of proposed interventions and the expected result chain (or
causal relationship).
The NDA/DP needs to ensure that the ToC clearly articulates the proposal’s goal. The goal
statement should show that there is consistency between the ToC diagram and the ToC
narrative. The goal statement in an if…then…because… format follows this logic:
‘If’ explains the changes to be financed by the proposal. For instance, if the project “x”
achieves “y” (main considerations of the proposal at output level) or if “x is achieved.”
‘Then’ Describes the change or desired ultimate result because of the change described in
the If statement (this should be aligned with the goal of the proposal).
‘Because’ explains how the change will be demonstrable – it should be based on something
measurable or verifiable: it should give few compelling reasons that clearly substantiate why
the proposed “if–then” hypotheses should work (it should speak to intermediate results from
the readiness request that substantiate why the ultimate desired change will happen), This
part should demonstrate the outcome.
Example:
IF the project supports operationalizing the inter-ministerial coordination mechanism, and
stakeholders including nominated DAE for accreditation (specify name) are capacitated to
effectively coordinate, plan, implement, monitor and report on climate-change initiatives with
relevant tools and platforms, as well as good quality Concept Notes to mobilize climate
finance, THEN (name the country) will be able to effectively operationalize its NDC to
achieve the country’s NDC target of 61% carbon dioxide reduction by 2030, BECAUSE the
country’s enabling environment will have been enhanced due to improved multi-stakeholder
coordination, improved stakeholder capacity, availability of updated strategic frameworks
and policies, and increased climate financing available to (name the country)”.
2 Outcomes and outputs

In order to identify which outcome(s) and which output(s) should be selected from the RRMF
grant output-level IRS, DP and NDA need to identify which objective(s) from the 5 board
approved objectives the proposed readiness proposal aims to focus. After the objective(s)
is selected, then relevant outcome(s) and output(s) should be identified sequentially, based
on the cause-effect analysis. It is also needed to note that objective 3, focusing on
“NAP/adaptation planning”, cannot be selected jointly with other objectives within a single
Readiness grant proposal.
To ensure consistency with the Readiness Results Management Framework, the outcome
and output statements will be used as defined in the RRMF grant output-level IRS in both
the ToC diagram and narrative sections. However, the NDA/DP should include a
contextualized explanation of the outcome and outputs statements in the ToC narrative that
will enable them to conceptualize these statements. Outputs can be related to one specific
outcome but may indirectly impact multiple outcomes, in such cases the linkages must be
clearly articulated and well demonstrated in the ToC diagram with arrows.
3 Activities
In the ToC narrative section, the proposal should list and describe the activities, and
clearly articulate how the proposed activities contribute to the proposed output. In this case,

clear linkages (causal relationships) of the proposed activities and the outputs should be
explained, including any horizonal linkages and interdependencies among the activities.
Please note that it is NOT mandatory to include activities in the ToC diagram. If a DP opts
to include activities in the ToC diagram, the activities could be summarized, and activity
numbering could be provided under corresponding outputs.
4 Barriers
For the development of the ToC, the barriers identified in section 2 of the proposal and those
that are targeted by the proposal should be included within the ToC for both the narrative
and diagram sections underneath each output or set of activities. The NDA/DP should
ensure that clear linkages of how the identified barriers will be addressed by the proposed
outcomes and outputs, are provided in the ToC narrative and linkages clearly mapped in the
ToC diagram.
5 Risk and assumptions

The proposal must establish and make explicit the related key assumptions underpinning
the Theory of Change, how change happens and major risks that may affect it.
Risks: The Readiness Proposal provides for a detailed risk matrix table in section 5.3. The
NDA and DPs are also required to include in the Theory of Change the key risks identified
in this risk matrix and classified, for instance, by medium or high probability of occurrence
or a medium or high impact on the implementation of the intervention.
Assumptions: Developing the Theory of Change involves making explicit collective
assumptions about how a change will unfold. These are either necessary conditions (e.g.
inter-ministerial buy-in) that must be in place or complementary actions to ensure that the
proposed activities are successfully implemented to achieve the intended results.
In addition to the above set of assumptions and in the RPSP context, if any intended results
of the Readiness Proposal are dependent on any other existing projects or programmes,
those projects or programmes should be included in the proposal assumptions.
Section 4. Logical framework
With the adoption of the Readiness Results Management Framework (RRMF) the GCF
Readiness Proposals are required to use and include the results and indicators containing in
the RRMF in the logical framework, and NDA/DP are also required to monitor and report
against the intended results and indicators on a regular basis. The logical framework is a
project management tool that allows identification and articulation of a results chain for a
structured and logical intervention, and to measure performance against a set of indicators.
The logical framework helps NDA/DP to design an intervention that aim at addressing their
level of readiness capacity, gaps, and priorities.
To allow comparability and consistency of results across different Readiness grant proposals,
countries, and regions, the logical framework is designed in a macro-embedded Microsoft
Word Template, and it contains eight elements, which includes, objective, outcome, output,
indicator, target, means of verifications (MoV), notes on the target, as well as activities. A set
of activities is to be identified for each output result in the last column of the Logical framework
template for the Readiness grant proposal (see table 10).
There is a number of differences between this new logical framework template and the
previous one. The table below demonstrates these differences.

Table 9
Logical framework New template Previous template

elements
Availability of Dropdown Yes No

function
Inclusion of objective Yes No

statement
Inclusion of grant output- Yes No

level indicators
Deliverables8 No Yes
Target Yes Yes
Baseline9 No Yes
Means of Verification (MoV) Yes No
Notes (or other remarks) Yes No
Activities Less detailed Very detailed
8Deliverables are required only when the Delivery Partners prepare their progress reports in the
Portfolio Performance Management System (PPMS).
9 The narrative baseline and target information for each outcome result is excluded from the new
template, while the target asked for in the new template is each selected indicator, and no baseline
value is required given the nature of incremental indicators.

Table 10. A demonstration of a logical framework

Since the logical framework is designed as a separate Microsoft Word file, when drafting the
proposal, including the logical framework, NDA/DP needs to download the logical framework
template from this link to save it to their Personal Computer (PC) and work on it. Below are
the key steps to develop the logical framework, besides drafting and consultations with various
stakeholders:
Please find below the steps for Microsoft:
1. Download the logframe template from this link

2. Go to the Download folder → right click → select “properties” → tick “unblocked”
and click “OK”.
3. Open the file, any if any prompts appear, for example, “enable editing” or “enable
macros” or “enable contents”, please select it.
4. Provide the entries.
5. Save as the file “Logframe.docm” to the desired folder.
Please find below the steps for iSO:
1. Download the logframe template from this link.

2. Go to the Download folder → put the cursor on the file (Logframe.docm), → put the
cursor on “Open with” → click on “Microsoft Word (default)”, then click on “Enable
Macros”.
3. Provide the entries.
4. Save as the file “Logframe.docm” to the desired folder.
In case of any technical challenges, please send an email to servicedesk@gcfund.org
For the entries, the NDA/DP should follow these steps:
1. Select one relevant objective in the first column.

2. Select one outcome from the selected objective in the 2nd column.
3. Select one output from the selected outcome in the 3rd column.
4. Select one indicator from the selected output in the 4th column.
5. Select or provide numeric value as target for the indicator in the 5th column.
6. Provide Means of Verifications: tools to collect the data for that indicator in the 6th
column.
7. Provide a note to explain the target or the MoV (Optional) in the 7th column.
8. Provide a set of activities to be implemented in order to achieve the intended output
in the last column. Activities should be brief and contain only what/who, when and
where, while their details should be provided in the ToC-Narrative part.
9. Finally, if additional objective needs to be included, follow the step 1, and same
applies to additional inclusion of outcome(s), output(s), and indicator(s), needs to
follow step 2, step 3, and step 4 respectively by selecting the prior selected objective,
outcome, output, or indicator, and click on “Add extra
objective/outcome/output/indicator below”. Similar process if you wish to delete any
selected indicator, output, outcome and objective. However, please note that, if you
delete an objective, the whole objective will be deleted including the selected
outcome(s), output(s), and indicator(s), as well as other information that belongs to
that objective.
NDA/DP should be also able to add more results (objectives, outcomes, and outputs) and
indicators one at a time by clicking on the relevant box in the template. For example, after
objective 1 is added, NDA/DP may put the cursor on the first selected objective, then select
an option which says, “Add extra objective below”, then select the desired objective and fill out
the rest of that section. This process is applied the same in case to add or delete outcomes,
outputs and indicators.
The logical framework is an integral part of any Readiness grant proposal and is developed at
an early stage of the project preparation based on the ToC by the respective NDA/DP with the
support of the GCF Regional Desk. The logical framework will be drafted by the NDA/DP
during the co-development stage and will be reviewed and revised during the Inter-Divisional
Review (IDR) and Readiness Working Group (RWG) stages. When the grant enters into effect,
the logical framework information of the approved proposal will be automatically loaded or
copied to the logical framework module within the Portfolio Performance Management System
(PPMS) for reporting purposes.
To decide which objective, outcome, output, and output indicator is to be selected, the
NDA/DP must consult the RRMF document – RRMF grant output-level Indicator Reference
Sheet (IRS) The section below defines how each element of the logical framework should be
included and articulated according to the RRMF.
Objectives: Based on the identified objectives and selected outcome(s) provided in the ToC
section, DP/NDA needs to select relevant objective(s) from the RRMF grant output-level IRS.
These objectives are the focuses of the proposed readiness proposal.
After selection of an objective in column one of the logical framework template, the NDA /DP
will select relevant corresponding outcomes in column two.
Outcomes: Outcomes refer to key results to be achieved to enable the materialization of the
Readiness grant proposal goal, which is related to the country’s readiness to effectively access
climate finance, as well as to deliver and implement, monitor, report and evaluate GCF-funded
projects and programmes. Please note that for NAP/adaptation planning proposals (objective
3), only outcomes 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and/or 3.4 may be selected. Similarly, for Readiness grant
proposals under objectives 1, 2, 4, or 5, only the associated outcomes for those objectives
may be selected.
Outputs: Outputs refer to the immediate results that are derived directly from the execution
of the activity or set of activities and will contribute to the outcome achievement. Output result
statements also must be selected from those linked to the associated outcome only. For
example, if outcome 2.1 is selected in a readiness grant proposal; then only outputs belonging
to this particular outcome (output 2.1.1 or output 2.1.2., etc.) can be selected.
Indicators: Indicators refer to a metric that measures both qualitative and quantitative results
of interventions to help the NDA, DP and the GCF track progress towards the Readiness grant
goal at grant level and portfolio-aggregated level. Indicators offer an overview of past
performance, help the NDA, DP, and the GCF unify information on performance and provides
insight on what steps should be taken to make improvements. During the development of the
readiness proposal, the NDA or DP are required to consider selecting the grant output-level
indicators only, while the aggregation of the grant output level indicators, as well as those at
the outcome and impact/objective level will be managed by the Secretariat. As such, in the
logical framework template presented above, NDA/DP will be able to see and select only the
grant output-level indicators, besides the objectives, outcomes and outputs.
Targets: Targets include binary targets (e.g., Yes/No), numeric or scale targets for each
indicator. In case of a binary indicator, NDA/DP need to select “Yes” as the target, and if it is
a numeric indicator, NDA/DP need to provide a specific targeted amount/number to be
achieved by the end of the grant. Like scaling indicators, NDA/DP need to select the desired
scale for those indicators and provide further detailed in the notes column.

Means of Verification: NDA/DP are required to identify what tools and systems will be
developed and/or used to track the project implementation and measure or sources to the
results against each selected indicator under this section. For example, if the selected
indicator is “Has the NDA or Focal Point staff been trained on the operations of the Country
Coordination Mechanism,” the Means of Verification is the Pre- and Post-training evaluation
forms and/or training evaluations, or a consultant’s report should be included. Alternatively,
the Means of Verification can check if “Inter- and intra-institutional coordination and decision-
making mechanisms have been established or strengthened.” At a minimum a consultant’s
report, or key informant interviews, focus group discussions and/or stakeholder surveys should
be included here, in case for qualitative feedback or perception of the stakeholders on the
coordination mechanisms are required.
Notes: This part is reserved for additional details for the target for each indicator.
Set of activities: Specific activities to be undertaken to achieve each of the selected outputs.
Please refer to annex 4 of this RPSP Guidebook for a non-exhaustive list of activities. These
activities are indicative only, which means that the NDA/DP may modify or identify other
activities that are not available in this list but that are relevant for the proposal to achieve the
selected outputs as defined in the RRMF. Within the logical framework template, this set of
activities needs to be included for each corresponding output after all required indicators are
added to the logical framework template. The activities in the logframe should be a brief
compared to those articulated in the narrative part of the Theory of Change. Ideally, the activity
in the logframe should contain some forms of details such as who/what, when, and where.
The development of the logical framework is recommended to be conducted after consulting
with all relevant stakeholders. As for the ToC, the good practice for logical framework
development involves a process that allows for multiple reviews and revisions until it is clearly
articulated and endorsed by the relevant stakeholders. In a well-designed proposal, the logical
framework and ToC are closely associated and there is a continuous updating of each
document in relation to changes in the other.

Section 5. Implementation arrangements and other information (indicative

maximum length: eight pages)
Sub-section 5.1 Implementation arrangements
Please provide a clear articulation of the roles and responsibilities of all organizations involved
in the project (NDA, Delivery Partner, Implementing Entities, technical support organizations,
pay agents and other actors; the legal and functional relationships between these entities; the
implementation modality; and the direction of the flow of funds/information within the project).
Please note that all information should be consistent with the Framework Agreement and GCF
policies and guidance.
The role of the NDA should be in line with the principle of country ownership, with a clear
articulation of whether the NDA participates in grant implementation and how, whether the
NDA receives any of the grant funds including the amount or percentage of the total. Please
clearly state that the grant funds will not be used to pay for the staff or consultants of the
government or any beneficiaries.
If the DP implements the grant on its own without involving any Implementing Entity, the
following should be clearly specified in this section:
1) Implementation mechanism and modality (if applicable);
2) Roles of the Delivery Partner in the project and in each board/committee/working group
created;
3) Mechanism for reporting to the GCF; and
4) DP fee rate and charging point of time (based on GCF recommendations and/or
Framework Agreement clauses).
Please advise whether the DP has an office in the beneficiary country that will manage
implementation of the grant. If there is no office in the beneficiary country, please advise how
the DP intends to manage and coordinate grant implementation – e.g. via an Implementing
Entity or consultant(s) in situ, managed by the DP’s regional office for example. Strategies for
effective coordination between the DP and the NDA such as weekly monitoring meetings or
the designation of a dedicated team that liaises with the GCF is likely to improve
implementation.
In case the Delivery Partner entrusts implementation partially or fully to an Implementing
Entity, the following should be clearly defined in this section:
1) Implementing Entity selection method and process
2) Implementation mechanism and modality (if applicable);
3) Timeframes and processes for selection;
4) Share of grant funds to be transferred to Implementing Entities;
5) Conditions for the release of funds by the DP to the Implementing Entities;
6) Control mechanism of the Delivery Partner over the Implementing Entity (including
reporting, audit); and
7) Proposed reporting mechanisms to the GCF on implementation, financial performance
and reporting of the Implementing Entity.
If multiple Implementing Entities are envisaged, the clear delineation of their responsibilities
and the relationships between them should be provided (e.g. each Implementing Entity is
responsible for a specific output, or the main Executive Entity subcontracts other Executive
Entities while remaining ultimately responsible for all or specific outputs).

In case a pay agent and/or another organization are involved for technical support, please
specify their name and legal status, fee rate, and the source of financing of this fee (based on
eligible expenditures) in the budget section of the proposal.
Please attach an illustrated implementation map (see figure 5) that aims to provide an
overview of the key actors along with their functions and responsibilities in the implementation
of the readiness grant to enhance transparency as well as accountability. This is a visual
representation that maps the organizations involved in the project (Delivery Partners,
Implementing Entities, NDA, technical support organizations and, if applicable, pay agents
and other actors) as well as the flow of funds and/or information within the project.
Figure 5. Example of an implementation arrangements map
The grant implementation arrangement should clearly reflect the roles of the DP, the NDA,
and other stakeholders to facilitate the delivery of high-quality outputs. Below is a description
of the roles and responsibilities to be assumed by the primary grant stakeholders:
1. Delivery partner (DP)
The Delivery Partner is responsible for the implementation of the grant and will carry out all
fiduciary duties, including financial management, procurement of goods and services,
monitoring, and reporting activities in compliance with the GCF and the Delivery Partner
Policies and Procedures that will be laid out in the grant legal agreement.
When Implementing Entities are involved, the Delivery Partner assumes ultimate
management responsibility and accountability for all grant implementation matters. This
accountability extends to the execution of the activities and budget resources to be managed
by the Implementing Entity(ies).
2. National Designated Authority (NDA)
The NDA is responsible for providing quality control and endorsement of reports (technical,
monitoring, and evaluation reports) and documents produced under the grant to ensure
country ownership. The National Designated Authority facilitates and steers engagements with
other government ministries and stakeholders as required. Deliverables submitted to the GCF
are of higher quality when they have been reviewed by the NDA and assessed for relevance
to the country's climate change priorities and actions. Developing strong environment and
sustainability management systems, monitoring and evaluation and data management

platforms or information and communication systems with key stakeholders has helped DAEs
meet the reporting requirements for funded activities and speed up project implementation.
Implementation governance structure
1. Directing level
Project board steering committee
The Project Board, headed by the DP, is accountable to the GCF for the success of the grant
and has the authority to direct grant implementation as laid out in the grant agreement with
the GCF.
The Project Board provides guidance and oversight for the successful and timely
implementation of the grant to meet its objectives and results. The Project board makes
recommendations and approves work plans, the budget, and revisions before submission to
the GCF Secretariat for final approval. The Project board also approves periodic monitoring
and evaluation and is responsible for making management decisions, by consensus, when
guidance is required. Project board decisions are to be made in accordance with standards
that ensure efficiency, cost-effectiveness, transparency, and effective institutional
coordination. The Project board contains people with three main roles:
1. Executive (represented by the DP)
The executive is ultimately accountable for the project, supported by the Senior User and
Senior Supplier. The executive role is to ensure that the grant gives value for money by
balancing the demands of the Senior User and Senior Supplier. The executive is the ultimate
decision-maker in the Project board and is supported by the Senior Supplier and Senior User.
In cases where a consensus cannot be reached within the Project Board, the final decision
shall rest with the Executive (the DP).
2. Senior user (represented by the ultimate users of the grant outputs “beneficiaries’
interests”)
The Senior user is responsible for specifying the needs of those who will use the grant outputs,
for user liaison with the grant project management team, and for monitoring that grant outputs
will meet those needs within the constraints of the grant in terms of quality, functionality, and
ease of use.
The Senior user responsibilities shall include providing the grant beneficiaries’ quality
expectations and defining acceptance criteria for the grant outputs.
3. Senior supplier (represented by the Delivery Partner and any other Implementing
Entities)
The Senior supplier represents the interests of those designing, developing, facilitating,
procuring, and implementing the grant outputs. This role is accountable for the quality of the
grant outputs and their components. If necessary, more than one person may be assigned to
this role.
Under the Project board, the bodies described below shall be established to undertake the
grant's day-to-day activities.
2. Management level
Project Management Team
The Project Management Team is responsible for implementing the grant and is accountable
to the grant project board for providing the daily technical, administrative, and financial
management support. The project management team shall be comprised of a Project
Manager, Finance Officer, Project Coordinator, and any other positions that are deemed
necessary to support the grant delivery.

Project Assurance (optional)

Project Assurance is responsible for carrying out objective and independent grant oversight
and monitoring functions. This role ensures the grant meets its intended objectives. Project
Assurance must be independent of the Project Management Team; the project board shall not
delegate any of its quality assurance responsibilities to the project management team.
According to the scale, complexity, and risk of the project, project board members may
delegate some project assurance functions to separate individuals or other bodies to be
appointed by the board.
Sub-section 5.2 Implementation and Execution Roles and responsibilities
Please describe the roles and responsibilities of the following staff members (see table 11):
1. Envisioned grant staff and consultants (Grant Management Team)
2. Information regarding the essential skills and experience of technical staff and consultants,
in sufficient detail to ascertain their ability to complete specific activities and deliverables.
Table 11: Examples of roles and responsibilities of different project staff members
Entity Position Outputs Responsibilities Minimum Qualifications

Title
DP Project Grant Oversee and Academic qualifications:

Manager delivered manage the grant
within the delivery • Xxx
approved • Xxx
scope,
cost, and Professional qualifications:
timeline • Xxx
• Xxx
Ministry Climate 4.1.1: Conduct Academic qualifications:

of…/Implementing Change Concept stakeholder
Entity xxx Specialist Note consultations • Xxx
developed and draft the • Xxx
Concept Note
documents Professional qualifications:
• Xxx
Sub-section 5.3 Risk and mitigation measures
5.3.1 Risk Assessment and Risk Monitoring Plan

Please use this section to describe the potential risks as well as the risk monitoring plan.
Please provide potential risks that have been identified so far and corresponding mitigation
measures in this section using the format below (see table 12).

Table 12
Risk Specific Probability Impact Mitigation action(s) Entity(ies)

category10 risk(s) / of level responsible
If relevant, specify the
Risk(s) occurrence (low, to manage
strategies adopted by the
description (low, medium, the risk(s)
ongoing readiness grant in
medium, high)
the country to mitigate the
high)
risks
For example, potential risks that require mitigation measures could include delays in
implementation at grant launch from procurement of consultants/firms and obtaining
governmental clearances; potential disruptions from conflict or natural hazard-related
disasters; cost and market risks; inadequate coordination/participation among stakeholders or
institutions; and lack of political will to support the project to completion. Such risks could also
include potential risks and vulnerabilities for money laundering, terrorist financing, and
prohibited practices.
For each potential risk identified, please indicate the probability of occurrence using the
following scale: (low/medium/high).
For each potential risk identified, please indicate the impact level using the following scale:
(low/medium/high) and specify the entity that will manage each potential risk identified.
Please consider including lessons learned in the implementation of past grants or similar
grants especially if the NDA/Delivery Partner has already implemented or is implementing
readiness grants.
If the project will be managed remotely, please describe the measures (mechanisms and
controls) to be taken to identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate any risk of money laundering,
terrorist financing, or prohibited practices. Also, please confirm that a capacity assessment for
any Implementing Entities and/or consultant(s) has been conducted and advise of any risks
or vulnerabilities identified.
Please describe the measures (mechanisms and controls) to be taken for activities within the
proposal to identify, assess, monitor, and mitigate any risk of money laundering, terrorist
financing, prohibited practices, and other integrity matters.
5.3.2 Sanctions and Restrictive Measures

Please confirm whether there are (or not) currently United Nations Security Council (UNSC)
restrictive measures in force within any of the beneficiary countries. If yes, describe the
restrictive measures and provide further information as to how the delivery partner (DP) will
ensure compliance with the scope of any UNSC sanctions regimes.
10 Risk categories can include: Operational, Political, Stakeholder engagement, Implementation, Natural-hazards
related disasters, Unsustainability, Compliance, Money laundering, terrorist financing and prohibited practices, etc.

5.3.3 Grievance Redress Mechanisms

Please confirm whether mechanisms are available for third parties or anonymous persons to
report allegations of possible wrongdoing in the projects/activities (i.e. a whistle-blower
protection program), and describe applicable grievance redress mechanisms (GRM).
Sub-section 5.4 Monitoring
Please describe the monitoring plan for the Readiness Programme proposal. Through this
plan, progress towards achieving results should be properly and systematically monitored.
Please indicate how the monitoring will be conducted, by which organization, with what
frequency, and how results of monitoring will be fed back into the implementation of the
proposal and/or advise on any adaptive management. Below is a list of questions that should
be explained in the monitoring plan:
a) What monitoring activities are planned to be carried out? At what frequency? Who will
perform these monitoring activities?
b) What tools will be developed and used to monitor each output and what are their respective
indicators? More detail can be provided on the identified Means of Verification provided in
the logical framework.
c) How will the monitoring findings be used and fed into Project management decisions as
well as adaptive management?
d) What reporting arrangements have been planned? The frequency of reporting to GCF
and/or Service Provider should be clearly outlined.
e) Is there any plan to train the Project staff and stakeholders to perform the monitoring
activities? If so, how? If not, why not?
The final evaluation or terminal evaluation of the Readiness grant is no longer financially
supported by the RPSP, therefore, the GCF does not require this type of evaluation to be
planned and budgeted.
Sub-section 5.5 Other relevant information
Please provide a summary of cooperation between the Delivery Partner and the NDA/Focal
Point. Please also describe how the Delivery Partner was selected and how the NDA decided
the Delivery Partner was best placed to implement the proposal.
Please also describe the exit strategy. How will project sustainability be ensured in the long
run? How will this be monitored after the project is implemented with support from the GCF)
The systematic capturing of lessons learned and knowledge management and/or the transfer
of capacity and skills to the NDA and other relevant stakeholders at the national and sub-
national levels should be planned.
If the Delivery Partner for a Readiness Programme proposal is an Accredited Entity or
candidate entity for accreditation, the following statement must be included in this section of
the proposal:
“To avoid any possible conflicts of interest deriving from the Delivery Partner’s role
as an Accredited Entity, the prioritization of investments and projects in the context
of this readiness grant, will be made through a broad consultation process with
relevant stakeholders, including other potential implementing entities. The final
validation of these priorities will be carried out through the countries’ own relevant
coordination mechanism and institutional arrangements, with the participation of
other government agencies as well as representatives from civil society and the
private sector as the NDA deems relevant, to ensure chosen priorities are fully aligned

with national plans and strategies and adequately includes inputs from consulted
stakeholders.”
In upholding the country ownership principle, and upon completion of the grant activities, the
grant recipient (Delivery Partner), upon completion of the grant activities, shall transfer all
tangible and intangible assets and their ownership to the grant beneficiaries represented by
the NDA, or any other body(ies) designated by the NDA.
Section 6. Budget, procurement, HR and Implementation plans (indicative

maximum length: 4 pages)
Sub-section 6.1 Budget Plan
The DP submitting a grant proposal must include a complete budget proposal utilizing the
templates in annex 10, with a fully detailed budget plan as well a budget note for each item in
the budget plan. The budget must provide the unit cost and quantity under each budget
category. The budget notes should explain in a concise manner the assumptions made to
arrive at each cost item. All mathematical calculations must be presented clearly in the budget
plan and budget notes. The Budget template spreadsheet contains broad budget categories
and some of them may not be applicable or available to your organization’s accounting or
Enterprise Resource Planning system. Only fill out those categories that apply to your
proposed project and additional budget categories may be added manually by typing them in
the corresponding Budget Category sheet.
Outcomes and outputs in the budget proposal should be the same as in the Logical Framework
in section 4.
The budget must be denominated either in Euros or United States Dollars.
Annex 11 of this Guidebook provides benchmarks of median costs for some Readiness
outputs which will guide NDAs and DPs when working on proposals.
DPs may offer cost sharing or co-financing for the readiness grant activity, but it is not
mandatory. Note that if/when offering cost share/co-financing, DP must provide the same
amount of detail in the budget proposal and budget note as they would for the GCF grant fund
budget.
Paragraphs A to J below provide detailed guidance for the various cost categories that may
be part of your workplan and budget.
A. Project staff:
Salary: This refers to the cost of services of project staff newly recruited for project duration
through competitive HR/Procurement processes and directly involved with the project
activities. Salaries should be budgeted in the units in which they are paid. For example, if a
DP pays project staff in monthly rates, then the unit of measure in the budget should be the
month and the DP must use the rate per month for each project staff.
B. Delivery Partner Existing staff cost:

This refers to the costs for DP staff technical assistance to the GCF Readiness grant. The
GCF may authorize and approve charging the DP staff cost on daily rate/timesheet basis for
technical assistance and implementation support for the Readiness Programme grant. In
preparing the budget, applicable rates, number of days, description of services to be covered
in the Readiness proposal section 3 and budget note for each budget amount. DP staff roles
for technical assistance and implementation of the Readiness Programme grant must be
separated from Readiness Programme grant monitoring, quality control and oversight.

Whether technical or implementation support, the following must be applied for staff costs
charged to a GCF Readiness grant:
• They must be the actual cost attributable to the activity being funded by the grant (or a
reasonable approximation thereof);
• They must not bear any profit element or margin above cost;
• They must not be charged with a view to income generation; and
• They must not include any risk premium that is not based on actual cost.
C. External Professional Services:

Local and international consultant: This refers to costs for the payment of expert services
rendered by local and international individual consultants. External professional services
should produce specific deliverables on a timely basis.
Consulting fees: Consultancy fees should be consistent with local, regional, and international
market practice, depending on the type of technical assistance sourced. Generally, for
international consultants, fees should not exceed the UN standard international rates.
Travel and per diem costs for consultant: Reasonable travel and per diem costs may be
financed using the GCF readiness grant funds for international and local consultant service
providers in line with the normal Delivery Partner travel policy. Such costs are eligible only if
they are included separately in the budget proposal.
Professional or consultancy service firm or company: This budget category can be used
to hire or engage a registered firm or company for the performance of any part of the grant
activities through a competitive process. The services should provide specific deliverables on
a timely basis.
D. Communication materials and publications:

Printed materials: Unit costs for printed materials should demonstrate economy as
represented by the best available price in the market for the specifications (e.g. colour, number
of pages, paper format). The DP should ensure that justification for the unit costs is well
explained in the budget note. The range of unit prices for printing materials can vary depending
on the specifications and format required, the budget should include essential information on
the specifications of each item (e.g. colour, number of pages, paper format).
Visual, audio and video materials: Communication messages may be delivered via the
means of billboards, radio, and TV advertisements. Sufficient justification and costing
information should be included in the Readiness proposal and budget note. When production
of communications materials and publications is outsourced, commercial companies should
be selected through a competitive process in compliance with the relevant grant agreement.
Translations: Given that some of the deliverables of the Readiness Programme grants are
produced in the local language (e.g. Arabic, French, Portuguese, Spanish), translation costs
can be included in the budget plan.
E. Equipment:
This refers to the budget of both durable and expendable equipment. The Equipment budget
should be supported by a detailed estimate and costing information in the Budget note for
each Equipment budget line. The purchase of any equipment may be compared with a lease
or hire option, if available, while ensuring value for money considerations. Equipment budgets
include the following costs:
• Information technology (IT) systems and software, website creation and development;

• IT equipment and other hardware/software for database management information

systems; and
• Office equipment, furniture, audio-visual equipment, related maintenance, spare parts, and
repair costs.
Cost of equipment should be charged to the grant at the time of incurring the expenditure
rather than depreciated over the useful life of the equipment. Please add in the relevant budget
note who will use such equipment.
F. Training (workshop, seminars, orientations and learning visit):

This refers to reasonable costs, including travel, that are cost-effective and consistent with
market standards incurred for organizing and conducting training events, workshops,
orientations, or seminars.
The standard costing approach to trainings should be used for budgeting. Typically, an
average cost per person per day is calculated and then applied to similar training events. The
DP should determine the number of days required for the training, the total number of
participants (residents and non-residents); and the type of training (national, regional,
district/community or international level).
Possible cost items for training activity include lodging, venue and food, equipment rental,
training materials, facilitator fees/honorarium, per diems etc.
G. External Audit:
The GCF Readiness DP will submit an audit report as required under the relevant Readiness
Grant Agreement (to be determined by the grant duration). External auditor fees associated
with hiring an independent auditor to provide an opinion and assurance on the financial
statements and control mechanisms of GCF Readiness grants must be budgeted as
professional services under project management costs.
Illustrative Audit report template and TOR can be found online and includes two files:
A. Illustrative Audit report template
B. Sample Draft Audit Terms of reference
H. Contingency:
Up to 3 per cent of the total activity budget (excluding programme management costs and
Delivery Partner fee) may be added to the budget proposal as a contingency reserve. The
contingency reserve budget may be used for any unforeseen programme cost increases
(output level) beyond budgeted costs for consultants, training or equipment that is unrelated
to an implementation/service fee. The Readiness Programme Delivery Partner must submit a
contingency fund utilization approval request to the GCF Secretariat and/or Service Provider
before re-allocating the contingency budget to output budget or committing any expenditure.
Any use of the contingency budget must be reported in the financial report by expense cost
category. Any unspent contingency fund must be returned to the GCF and shall not be
reprogrammed into additional activities beyond the scope of the approved proposal or
purchase of additional equipment.
I. Project management costs (PMCs):

These are the direct administrative costs incurred to execute a Readiness Programme grant.
In most cases, these costs are directly related to the support of a dedicated Project
management Unit (PMU) that manages the day-to-day execution-related activities of the grant.
General principles of PMCs include:

• A PMC Budget threshold of up to 7.5 per cent of the total activity budget.
• A PMC Budget exceeding 7.5 per cent for Readiness Programme proposals (including
adaptation planning) will require detailed documentation and justification supporting the
entire PMC budget; and
• PMC should be shown as a separate component in the project budget. A detailed
breakdown of PMC should be provided.
• Indicative list of eligible costs under PMC:
• PMU personnel, including Project Manager, Project Assistant, Procurement
Personnel, and Finance and Administration Personnel;
• Other direct costs such as office equipment, mission-related travel costs for the
PMU, project management systems and information technology, office supply, and
audit cost;
• Costs of translating grant progress and completion reports to the GCF into and out
of English as pre-approved by the GCF.
• Indicative list of ineligible costs under PMC:
• Salaries and benefits of seconded staff from Implementing Entities, unless pre-
approved by the GCF;
• Salaries and fees for the DP staff or consultants, unless pre-approved by the GCF;
• Any budget costs indicated as contingent costs;
• Budgeted costs under general classifications such as miscellaneous or
unspecified;
• Outbound international travel costs unless pre-approved by the GCF;
• Capital goods other than those directly required for the successful execution of the
proposal; and
• Monitoring of project indicators and periodic monitoring reports (these should be
budgeted under the measurement and evaluation budget, and it should be a log
separate line from the PMC).
J. Delivery partner fee budget:
• Up to 8.5 per cent of the total grant (including PMC and contingency budgets) can be
added as a DP fee.
• Purpose and intended use: The use of the fee by the Delivery Partner will be
subject to reporting and certification. It is intended that fees be used to support the
implementation of Readiness Programme grants and other eligible Readiness
grant-related activities.
• Economies of scale: Delivery Partners managing more than five GCF-funded
projects or Readiness Programme grants are expected to explore synergies in the
management of projects in their GCF portfolio. This should result in cost savings
across the portfolio of projects under management and should be reflected in the
fee request.
• The final amount of the DP fee that the DP may apply for is calculated based on
the actual expenditure and not based on the total approved budget. Therefore, it is
highly recommended not to use the total fee prior to any grant expenditure being
incurred.
• Indicative list of eligible costs under the Delivery Partner fee:

• Project implementation and supervision:

– Appraise and finalize project implementation arrangements, including mission
travel;
– Assist and advise the project proponent on the establishment of project
management structure in the recipient country/countries;
– Assist project management to draft terms of reference and advise on the
selection of experts for implementation;
– Advise on and participate in project start-up workshops;
– Conduct at least one supervision mission per year, including briefing
operational Focal Points on project progress;
– Provide technical guidance or project implementation;
– Technical consultants during supervision missions to advise government
officials on technical matters and provide technical assistance for the project
as needed;
– Oversee procurement and financial management to ensure implementation is
in line with the policies and timelines of the DP;
– Disburse funds to the EEs/vendors (as applicable) and review financial reports;
– Assist/oversee the audit process throughout the project life cycle;
– Monitor the progress of implementation of the approved Readiness proposal
as per prescribed frameworks or standards by the Secretariat and prepare or
oversee the preparation of the required progress and completion reports for
submission to the Secretariat;
– Monitor and review project expenditure reports;
– Prepare periodic revisions to reflect changes in annual expense category
budgets; and
– Monitor and mitigate risks and conduct adaptive management of the approved
Readiness proposal, and promptly inform the Secretariat.
• Project reporting and evaluation:
– Oversee the preparation of the project completion report, and submit the report
to the Secretariat;
– Prepare project closing documents for submission to the Secretariat;
– Prepare the financial closure of the project for submission to the Secretariat;
and
– Prepare and implement management measures noted in qualified audits and
share these with the Secretariat.
Sub-section 6.2 Procurement plan
The procurement plan is designed to outline the process for acquiring goods and services
needed to complete a readiness grant, and it should focus on identifying the specific items or
services that need to be procured.
The procurement of goods and services for the GCF Readiness Programme grant shall be
conducted in a manner that is based on the following principles:
• Best value for money, effective competition;

• Need for economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and

• Impartiality, transparency, fairness and accountability.
The section on the procurement plan must be completed in accordance with procurement
policies and procedures of the organization implementing the Readiness Programme grant,
or third party’s rules that the organization applies. The procurement plan should include
details of all items that are planned to be procured (I.e. goods, services, works and services
of individual consultants), applicable procurement methods, general thresholds for the use of
these methods and tentative timelines. It may cover the full amount requested or at least the
first tranche of disbursement that is being requested. When the procurement plan only covers
the first tranche of disbursement, a procurement plan for the remaining disbursement must be
submitted along with the disbursement request for subsequent tranches for review and
clearance by the GCF Secretariat.
GCF prefers that the DP selects national consultants where possible rather than
regional/international consultants. Proper justification must be provided if/when services of
regional or international individual consultants are planned to be procured. Please use this
sub-section to provide justification for procurement of regional/international consultants.
Non-procurement items, such as Daily Subsistence Allowance (DSA), terminal allowances,
visa fees, etc. Should not be listed in procurement plan. Same applies for office costs and
associated utilities, in case DP already has rented office and would charge some expenses
that are related solely to the Readiness grant, on pro-rated bases. In case new office would
be procured/rented through competitive procurement, it should be listed in the Procurement
Plan.
Sub-section 6.3 Human Resources (HR) Plan
The HR plan is designed to outline the needs and the process for recruiting staff needed to
complete a readiness grant, if any. It refers to employment of staff in full compliance with local
legislation, and it should be distinguished from the Procurement Plan and procurement of
Individual Consultants.
Sub-section 6.4 Implementation Plan
The implementation plan should follow an Output-Based Planning approach that clearly
demonstrates the sequence of production and interdependencies of the grant outputs.
The implementation plan must be completed by indicating the months in which each output
will start and finish the implementation, together with identifying the interdependencies
between outputs (if there are any).
The process of breaking down the scope of the grant into an Output-Based Work Breakdown
should be done until the entire grant scope is decomposed into adequate details representing
specific outputs to be produced at defined timelines during the grant implementation stage. In
other words, the implementation plan must be structured in a way that allows the GCF and the
NDA to assess the performance of the grant at defined intervals rather than waiting until the
grant end date. This means there should be a certain number of completed outputs by the end
of each reporting cycle.
Output interdependencies
Targeted outputs must be identified in terms of their dependency on other outputs as follows:
• Stand-alone output: An output whose delivery is not dependent on the delivery of other
outputs; or

• Output with interdependency: An output whose delivery depends on other outputs to be

delivered by the same grant.
For example, if the grant proposal is targeting output 1.2.1 “Candidate entities identified and
nominated for direct access” and output 1.2.2 “Direct Access Applicants supported with
training, capacity development, or improved systems to close gaps”, then output 1.2.1 should
be indicated as a stand-alone output, and output 1.2.2 should be indicated as dependent on
output 1.2.1 delivery.
Total grant duration

When drafting the Implementation plan, the NDA/DP shall take into consideration an initial
preparation phase to set up the grant. In determining the total grant implementation duration,
it is important to account for any time necessary to set up grant management processes,
recruit the project management team and consultants, put in place coordination and
communication channels, and any other tasks that are deemed essential during the grant
inception period.
Procurement of consultants has been identified as one of the main challenges faced by the
DP. It is recommended at the design stage that the DP to take into consideration:
• Duration of internal procurement processes;
• Ability of DP to draft consultant terms of reference;
• Availability of qualified local/international consultants/consulting firms (preliminary market
research could help the DP to avoid delays and disappointment at the implementation
stage);
• Quality check of deliverables and/or sharing any comments to the relevant consultants;
and
• Interdependency of activities.
Allocating sufficient time frame for the quality check and verification of deliverables is also
recommended, and avoid finalizing them a few weeks/days before the grant expiry date,
leaving no time for quality checks and/or integrating the feedback into the final deliverables.

Annexes
Annex 1. Readiness Standards Handbook
Purpose
This Readiness Standards Handbook is an evergreen guide to ensure that the appropriate
review and appraisal is conducted on each readiness proposal (RP) effectively and efficiently
and in a consistent and predictable manner. This Handbook intends to set out a transparent,
methodological process incorporating criteria and checklists to assess readiness proposals
with all levels of due diligence at the Secretariat. This multi-step process provides sufficient
information for the RWG to make an informed decision as per its mandate regarding the
received RP.
Stages of the proposal review procedures are illustrated below (see table 13):
Table 13
Regional Desk Inter-Divisional Review Criteria
New Completeness and Completeness and

country ownership country ownership check
Request
check criteria
Regional Initial Review Quality standards

Desk Review
Interdivisional Appraisal Quality standards

review
Completeness and country ownership check criteria

Upon submission of the new readiness proposal, the DCP Regional Desk shall conduct the
following completeness and country ownership check. Once the DCP Regional Desk is
satisfied that the proposal is complete, the readiness proposal can move to the Regional Desk
Review.
Completeness check
The completeness check is a simple verification that the proposal package submitted by the
NDA is complete and follows the format as required by the template. The proposal package
should comprise the readiness proposal, budget and, if relevant, the Readiness Needs
Assessment; for regional and multicountry proposals, it must include accompanying letters of
financial support from all participating countries signed by their NDA.
The proposal package is complete if all questions below can be answered affirmatively:

Table 14
Completeness Check template

# Guiding questions YES NO
1 Has section 1: summary of the readiness proposal been completely filled in? ☐ ☐
2 Does the logical framework use the wording and numbering of the objectives ☐ ☐
and outcomes as laid out in table 1 of this RPSP Guidebook? Is it aligned with
the RRMF? Does it use the RRMF defined indicators?
3 Does the proposal contain a theory of change diagram? Does it clearly present ☐ ☐
the proposal’s goal, goal statement, outcomes, outputs, activities, key
assumptions and identification of gaps, barriers and risks?
4 Is the theory of change goal statement structured in “if-then-because” format? ☐ ☐
5 Does a clear narrative accompany the theory of change? ☐ ☐
6 Is the budget and procurement plan prepared as per the template? ☐ ☐
7 Is an implementation schedule included in the Excel file? Does it match the ☐ ☐

activities described in the logical framework?
8 Does the budget remain within the annual cap (i.e. USD 1 million per year)? ☐ ☐
9 In the case of a multiple-year proposal, has a Readiness Needs Assessment ☐ ☐

been submitted?
10 In the case of multi-country/regional proposals, do the letters of financial ☐ ☐

support/no-objection submitted by the respective NDA clearly specify the
amount of readiness support (in USD) to be allocated towards the proposal?
11 Does the proposal contain a risk analysis table in the format prescribed in this ☐ ☐
RPSP Guidebook (i.e. identified risk, probability, impact level, mitigation
measure, and responsible party for risk monitoring)?
12 If the country is under UNSC Sanctions, are the applicable sanctions discussed ☐ ☐
in the risk table, and is a letter appended to the proposal from the DP confirming
that according to their assessment of the UNSC sanction regime, the proposed
activities are not subject to, or affected by UNSC sanctions?
13 Is there an implementation arrangement map or graphic mapping the ☐ ☐

organizations involved, the flow of funds and the flow of information between the
parties involved?
Country ownership check (1 to 3 hours)

As described above, the country ownership check is meant to determine if the proposal fits
with the overall strategy for the country and is well aligned with the expectations of the GCF.
Essentially, this is an analysis by the Regional Desk of the deliverables of the proposal, its
complementarity with past grants by the GCF or other entities, and its alignment with the
country’s strategic plan to access climate finance.

The Regional Desks should analyse the goals and deliverables of the proposal to make sure
that it is truly country driven and not driven by other interests. It is also a common-sense check
so that the planned outputs are well aligned with the scope of the Updated Strategic Plan
(2020) and other policy or guidance provided by the GCF.
The proposal package should only advance to review/appraisal if all questions below can be
answered affirmatively:
Table 15
Country Ownership Check template

# Guiding questions YES NO
1 Are all previous GCF readiness activities and relevant complementary projects ☐ ☐
(funded by other partners) described in the summary and analysed in the situation
analysis with a clear linkage to activities of the given readiness proposal?
2 Does the proposal include a description of how the proposed support will be ☐ ☐
delivered in complementarity with other readiness support, including support from
other development partners?
3 Are the gaps and needs presented in the summary and in detail in the situation ☐ ☐
analysis aligned with the analysis of sector/activity-specific priorities within the
country’s national climate strategy(ies) or plan(s)? [The situation analysis should
include a succinct problem statement(s).]
4 Does the situation analysis include an analysis of sector/activity-specific priorities ☐ ☐

within the country’s national climate strategy(ies) or plan(s) as defined in relevant
strategic and policy documents (e.g. national and sectoral climate strategies or
plans, Climate investment plans, CPs, Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions
(NAMAs), NAPs, NDCs, TNAs, RE frameworks, national communications,
Adaptation Communications, etc.)?
5 (If applicable) Is the proposal derived from/aligned with the priorities identified in ☐ ☐
the Readiness Needs Assessment (RNA)?
6 Are the outcomes of this proposal, combined with the outcomes of past readiness ☐ ☐
grants, well aligned with the scope of the Updated Strategic Plan (2020), and other
policy or guidance provided by the GCF and with the overarching objective of
accessing climate finance? (i.e. Does it make sense?)
7 Are the more standardized deliverables in the budget plan such as CPs, CNs, ☐ ☐
workshops, etc., in line with benchmark values included in table 1 of this RPSP
Guidebook?
8 Has the readiness proposal been developed in consultation with relevant ☐ ☐

stakeholders?
9 Does the implementation arrangement clearly describe NDA and other relevant ☐ ☐
stakeholder roles in the implementation of the readiness grant and provide
opportunities to build essential, necessary capacities, promote national ownership
and ensure sustainability of the results?

If the country ownership check results in any negative answers, DCP Regional Desk should
engage the NDA and offer co-development support to ensure that the proposal meets country
needs and GCF requirements.
Quality Standards
Once a proposal has been moved to Regional Desk Review, the DCP Regional Desks will
conduct an initial review to ensure that the proposal adheres to the Quality Standards noted
below.
The following Quality Standards are organized by theme: (I) General guiding questions and
(II) Proposal section. These standards represent the criteria, in guiding questions, that the
DCP Regional Desks and the interdivisional review team will use as guidance during the
review. The guiding questions from the Quality Standards applied during review of the
readiness proposal identify the GCF division that has the ultimate responsibility for the
comments of a given section (they are the “owner” of a given section). Where the owner is not
the DCP, the DCP will, nevertheless, review the proposal against these standards during the
initial review by the DCP stage [Stage 2 (i)] with the intent to ensure quality at entry and reduce
the workload of the interdivisional review team. If the desk is satisfied that the proposal has
met the Quality Standards, it can then initiate an interdivisional review. Should comments by
DCP conflict with those of another division, the DCP Regional Desk will attempt to resolve the
conflicting comments with the ultimate authority being the chair of the Readiness Working
Group (RWG).
The proposal package should only advance to Interdivisional Review if all questions below
can be answered affirmatively:
Table 16
Quality Standards template

I Guiding questions to be considered throughout the Owner YES NO
overall proposal
Complementarity and coherence
1. Does the proposal describe the financial support that has been DCP ☐ ☐
received or is foreseen from other sources for readiness type activities
(including the development of an adaptation plan) including but not
limited to the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Adaptation Fund,
NDCP, and other relevant to the country context?
2. If relevant, are the activities planned for this proposal additional to past DCP ☐ ☐
or ongoing readiness grants? Does the information provided in the
summary and situation analysis have a clear linkage to activities of the
readiness proposal?
Pipeline Development (if relevant)
3. If the pipeline or Concept Notes are well described in the readiness DMA ☐ ☐
proposal, are they aligned with GCF investment criteria, the Updated
Strategic Plan (2020), and other GCF policies or guidance?


4. If details on the pipeline or Concept Notes are not included or well DMA ☐ ☐
described n in the readiness proposal, has a mechanism been
described in the proposal that ensures that they will be11?
5. Are the sectors being considered in the readiness proposal in line with DMA ☐ ☐
GCF sector guides/priorities?
6. Is the pipeline of projects linked to the Country Programme or other DMA ☐ ☐

national strategies and plans?
7. Will the pipeline be developed following a national investment DCP ☐ ☐

prioritization process?
8. Will the pipeline and prioritization be based on evidence such as DCP ☐ ☐

emissions scenarios and/or vulnerability and impact assessments?12
9. (For adaptation planning proposals) Does the proposed pipeline DMA ☐ ☐

address specified vulnerabilities and climate impacts?
Private sector investment (if relevant)
10. Were both private and public sector decision makers, including at local PSF ☐ ☐
levels, engaged in planning?
11. If applicable, will the readiness grant address barriers that are limiting PSF ☐ ☐
the crowding in of the private sector investment, including through the
support of an enabling environment?
12. Does the proposal align with the GCF readiness guidance on private PSF ☐ ☐
sector engagement?
13. Is the proposal in line with the private sector strategy by addressing PSF ☐ ☐
any of the following:
• Supporting NDA, national and subnational entities to develop long-
term climate investment road maps, green investment plans and
policies targeting private investments for climate action that
maximize co-benefits between mitigation, adaptation and
sustainable development;
• Assisting national actors involved in finance and investment,
including NDAs, to develop policies and strategies such as carbon
pricing, integrated climate and green finance road maps, climate
risk disclosure, valuing positive externalities of climate action and
development of an appropriate private sector investment strategy
driven by local circumstances;
11
This is to avoid the development of a pipeline that is essentially not fundable by the GCF because the concepts
do not adhere to our investment criteria or are not aligned with other guidance or policy.
12 Ideally, a climate change project pipeline should be based on evidence of the most recent emission scenarios,
vulnerability and impact assessments, market analysis, and common practice analysis. If none of these are
available, the readiness proposal should focus on building this evidence. Details will be developed in the GCF’s
climate investment planning guidance document currently under development.


• Promoting greater engagement between governments and the
private sector and increasing the private sector’s contribution
towards achieving national climate goals;
• Translating NDCs, NAPs and long-term climate strategies into
investment plans that (i) align, combine and sequence multiple
sources of international and domestic finance from the public and
private sectors; (ii) address policy and regulatory gaps to improve
the bankability of the NDC project pipeline; and (iii) identify
financial mechanisms that do not increase sovereign debt, but
catalyse private funds and increase access to long-term affordable
finance;
• Strengthening the capacity of NDA, Focal Points, DAEs and local
private sector actors to better quantify climate risks and identify
climate-friendly business opportunities;
• Conducting national-level mappings of private sector actors
(domestic and international) to identify the most relevant partners
to support the achievement of countries’ Nationally Determined
Contributions and National Adaptation Plan goals, as well as
formulating and executing private sector engagement plans;
• Increasing the share of private sector Direct Access Entities to the
GCF; and,
• Piloting green financial products, including climate-indexed
insurance, or developing national green financing vehicles such as
green banks or trust funds.
Adaptation Financing Strategy (for adaptation planning proposals only)
14. Does the adaptation financing strategy analyse public and private, PSF ☐ ☐
domestic and international potential funding sources of funding for the
adaptation priorities identified?
15. Where feasible, does the adaptation financing strategy provide for a PSF ☐ ☐
mix of financial instruments?
Country Programme (if relevant)
16. Does the proposal describe how the Country Programme will translate DCP ☐ ☐
priority ideas into Concept Notes, utilize new financial instruments or
mobilize large scale climate finance from GCF and other partners in
the future?
17. Does the proposal describe how the Country Programme’s priorities DCP ☐ ☐
are evidence-based (i.e. based on emissions scenarios and/or
vulnerability and impact assessments)?
18. Does the proposal plan a dialogue between AEs, nominated DAEs, DCP ☐ ☐
and the government to facilitate the promotion and development of a
pipeline of projects?
ESS, gender, and indigenous peoples’ policies
19. Does the proposal make use of or enable inclusive and gender- Office of ☐ ☐
responsive stakeholder engagement mechanisms and inter- Sustaina


institutional arrangements across relevant levels of government and bility and
sectors, including with women-led groups, indigenous peoples’ Inclusio
organizations, and minority communities? Has the Stakeholder n (OSI)
Engagement Guidance Note been used?
20. For capacity-building activities, have GCF policies (Revised OSI ☐ ☐

Environmental and Social Policy, Updated Gender Policy, and
Indigenous Peoples Policy; and relevant Sustainability Guidance
Notes) been incorporated into the operations and decision-making
processes of national institutions for compliance? The Scope of
Application of the GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy (paragraph 16) is
relatively broad and should be understood. It should also be
understood that new provisions in the Revised ESP emphasize the
need to incorporate SEAH safeguarding, as part of ESS.
21. Will the grant resources be managed according to the GCF Revised OSI ☐ ☐
Environmental and Social Safeguards System (which includes SEAH
provisions), Indigenous Peoples Policy, and Updated Gender Policy?
II. Guiding questions to be considered in specific

Owner YES NO
sections of the proposal
Section 1: Summary
22. Is the objective of the proposed support clearly described? DCP ☐ ☐
23. Have the gaps and challenges and the ways in which the proposal will DCP ☐ ☐
address them been clearly identified?
24. Is there a clear statement on who the intended direct beneficiaries of DCP ☐ ☐
the proposal are?
Section 2: Situation Analysis
25. Is the country’s baseline situation in the areas or sectors to be DCP ☐ ☐

supported by the readiness proposal clearly described? 13
26. Are the relevant national/sectoral climate change policies and plans DCP ☐ ☐
(e.g. NDCs, NAPs, National Adaptation Programmes of Action
(NAPAs), Technology Needs Assessments, national policies,
strategies, and action plans) clearly described, including the key
priorities and the planning/development/implementation status of
those climate change policies and/or plans?
13The baseline information may include (i) a brief description of climate context in the country, including impact on
the sectors/ thematic areas to be supported and/or importance of the target sectors/thematic areas to country’s
adaptation/mitigation ambition and economic and social development; and (ii) brief description of what has been
achieved/expected to be achieved in the target sectors/thematic areas, including from the approved readiness
grants/projects or any other relevant initiatives in the country


27. Are the relevant institutional frameworks and arrangements in place to DCP ☐ ☐
support the planning, programming and implementation of climate
change policies and plans clearly described?
28. Does the readiness proposal provide a clear definition of the DCP ☐ ☐
problem(s) to be addressed in the form of a problem statement (an
expression of the overarching problem that clearly articulates and
justifies the need for the readiness proposal). The problem may speak
to the overarching gap14, challenge15, barrier16 depending on which
terms are relevant for the readiness proposal.
29. Are the specific gaps, challenges, barriers clearly discussed in DCP ☐ ☐
alignment with the problem statement and linked to national, sectoral
climate policies, plans, processes and/or human, institutional,
technical capacities needed to support the planning, programming and
implementation of those policies, plans, processes?
30. Is there a clear link between the identified gaps, challenges, barriers DCP ☐ ☐
and the baseline situation?17
31. Does the section include a description of how the proposed support DCP ☐ ☐
will be delivered in complementarity with existing initiatives, including
readiness grants in the pipeline, projects and any relevant non-GCF
initiatives (support from other development partners)?
32. Is there a description of the consultation processes with relevant DCP ☐ ☐

stakeholders to ensure that the chosen priorities are fully aligned with
national plans/strategies and inputs from the consulted stakeholders
are adequately captured?
33. Does the proposal include a brief analysis on how climate change has DCP ☐ ☐
impacted people of different genders unequally fashion and how
gender equality could contribute to the achievement of the proposal’s
results?
Section 3: Theory of Change - Diagram
34. Does the proposal contain a Theory of Change (ToC) diagram? DPM ☐ ☐
14Gaps: Gaps imply any deficiencies in policies, plans, processes, and human/institutional/technical capacities that
are to be overcome to reach the desired outcomes
15 Challenges refer to any factors that make it difficult to achieve the desired outcomes. With the challenges in
place, the desired outcomes may or may not be achieved and eliminating them will help improve in efficiency for
the achievement of the desired outcomes while overcoming the gaps is a prerequisite for the achievement of the
designed outcomes.
16
Barriers refer to any factors that prevent progress or advancement against the stated outcomes of the intended
activities that is to be removed
17 Gaps, challenges, and barriers imply that there is undesirable states (baseline situation) and desired outcomes.
So, it’s important to make clear as to how the identified gaps are the actual deficiencies in the current baseline
situation, or the challenges/barriers the actual factors that prevent the country from moving from the baseline
situation to the desired outcomes.


35. Does the ToC diagram clearly present the proposal’s goal statement, DPM ☐ ☐
outcomes, outputs, barriers, risks, and key assumptions?
36. Is the goal statement aligned with the goal and long-term objective DPM ☐ ☐
presented in section 1 and 2?
37. Is the ToC goal statement structured in “if-then-because” format? DPM ☐ ☐
38. Are the statements of outcomes and outputs taken verbatim from the DPM ☐ ☐
RRMF and aligned with the ones in the logical framework?
39. Is/are selected output(s) able to contribute to the achievement of DPM ☐ ☐

its/their corresponding outcome?
40. Are there clear causal links between and across outcomes and outputs DPM ☐ ☐
(vertically and horizontally)?
41. Are there clear causal links between and across outputs and activities DPM ☐ ☐
(vertically and horizontally), in case activities are included?
42. Are there clear causal links between and across outputs and the DPM ☐ ☐
identified barriers (vertically and horizontally)?
43. Are the key barriers identified in section 2 properly summarized and DPM ☐ ☐
included in the ToC diagram?
44. Are key risks identified in section 3.2 properly summarized and DPM ☐ ☐
included in the ToC diagram?
45. Have the included risks indicated clear links to specific activities or any DPM ☐ ☐
outputs and outcomes?
46. Does the ToC include realistic assumptions linked to specific DPM ☐ ☐
outcomes?
Section 3: Theory of Change - Narrative
47. Does the proposal contain a ToC narrative? DPM ☐ ☐
48. Besides the verbatim output and outcome statements, is there any DPM ☐ ☐
contextualized articulation of the output and outcome?
49. Does the ToC narrative clearly and concisely describe the proposed DPM ☐ ☐
intervention (goal, specific objectives, outcomes, outputs, activities)?
50. Is there a direct/explicit link between the specific objective(s) of the DPM ☐ ☐
proposal and the priorities of relevant national or sectoral climate
change strategies and/or plans?
51. Are the outputs and activities designed to directly address the DPM ☐ ☐
identified barriers, gaps, and challenges?


52. Are the outputs and activities designed to directly support the identified DPM ☐ ☐
beneficiaries?
53. Does the ToC narrative clearly describe how activities will lead to the DPM ☐ ☐
intended outputs?
54. Does the ToC narrative clearly describe causal effects between DPM ☐ ☐
outputs and across outcomes?
55. Does the ToC narrative describe how activities mutually reinforce each DPM ☐ ☐
other within and across outputs?
56. Does the ToC narrative clearly describe how the proposed DPM ☐ ☐
interventions will overcome the identified to achieve the goal of the
readiness proposal?
57. Does the ToC narrative clearly describe the mitigation measures to DPM ☐ ☐
address the identified risks?
58. Does the ToC narrative clearly describe the assumptions made for DPM ☐ ☐
achievement of the proposal’s results (outcomes, outputs, and
activities)?
59. Are the ToC diagram, narrative and logical framework consistent with DPM ☐ ☐
each other?
Section 4: Logical Framework – Indicators & Baseline Target value
60. Are the selected outcomes and outputs consistent with those included DPM ☐ ☐
in the ToC?
61. Are there any missing indicators or not relevant indicators from the DPM ☐ ☐
RRMF for the selected output?
62. Are targets established for each indicator? DPM ☐ ☐
63. Are the established targets for each indicator logical and meaningful? DPM ☐ ☐
64. Are the activities included SHORT, but clear and precise (What/Who? DPM ☐ ☐
When? and where?)?
65. Are activities listed correctly entailed in the ToC-narrative part? DPM ☐ ☐
66. Are all activities identified under an output able to achieve the intended DPM ☐ ☐
output? (Crossing-checkedwith those in the ToC)
67. Are the identified output(s) able to address the identified barriers? DPM ☐ ☐
(Cross-checked with those in the ToC)
68. Are there any activities or outputs directly or indirectly addressing DPM ☐ ☐
gender issues, if the issue is discussed in the section 2?


69. Are the Means of Verification provided, and are they relevant and DPM ☐ ☐
feasible for the indicator?
70. Is explanation on the target(s) provided in the note column precise, DPM ☐ ☐
and with required disaggregation?
Section 5.1 Implementation Arrangements
71. Is the implementation arrangement clearly described with clear roles DPM ☐ ☐
and responsibilities of all stakeholders involved?
72. Is a Steering Committee or similar mechanism planned as a governing DPM ☐ ☐

body to oversee and guide the grant (particularly for regional and multi-
country proposals)?
73. Is the implementation arrangement map consistent with the DPM ☐ ☐

description provided in the proposal?
74. Are the roles of the DP and that of the NDA clearly demarcated (and OGC/ ☐ ☐
have an endorsed FMCA and, if applicable, satisfy conditions attached
DPM
to the endorsed FMCA)?
75. For DPs with Framework Agreements (FWAs), are the implementation OGC ☐ ☐
arrangements consistent with the signed FWA between the relevant
DP and the GCF?
For DPs with FWAs, does the FWA allow the DP to transfer
funds/obligations to another entity (i.e. engage an ‘Implementing
Entity’)? If the FWA does not permit such an arrangement, the DP
must implement the activities themselves and/or procure
firms/individual consultants.
Any reference to ‘potential’ or ‘proposed’ implementation
arrangements or ‘proposed entities/partners’ should not be in the
proposal. There should be a clear view and description of all
implementation arrangements and partners/implementing entities
should be clearly identified.
Section 5.2 Implementation and execution roles and responsibilities
76. Has the DP/NDA confirmed unequivocally in the proposal that it will be OGC ☐ ☐
responsible for project implementation (e.g. fiduciary and financial
management, procurement, monitoring, reporting, procurement, in
accordance with DP policies and procedures and the terms of the grant
agreement that it will enter into with the GCF, or with the latest version
of the Framework Readiness and Preparatory Support Grant
Agreement for DPs with FWAs)?
77. In the case of a proposal implemented by a DP, the role of the NDA OGC ☐ ☐
should be that of oversight with the guiding principle of country
ownership. Does the proposal clearly state that the DP has direct
responsibility for procurement, management, oversight and control of
consultants (particularly if the project management unit established for
this proposal is in the NDA)? Has this also been clearly depicted in the
implementation map?


78. No government staff can be paid using GCF funds. Is it clearly stated OGC ☐ ☐
that no GCF funds will go to government staff?
79. In case the DP plans to sub-contract its roles and responsibilities with OGC ☐ ☐
respect to project implementation, and transfer all or part of the GCF
grant proceeds, to an Implementing Entity, then this arrangement
needs to be explained in detail (including details of the specific
activities the Implementing Entity will implement and the amount of the
grant to be transferred) along with confirmation of a successful
capacity assessment carried out on the Implementing Entity. The
Implementing Entity must be a legal entity and the proposal must
include an explanation of the contractual arrangements and/or legal
arrangements that will be put in place between the NDA/DP and the
Implementing Entity through which funds and relevant requirements of
the GCF will be passed onto the Implementing Entity. If applicable, has
evidence of a Financial Management Capacity Assessment been
submitted with the proposal?
80. In mapping implementation arrangements, have the roles of all entities OGC/ ☐ ☐
been detailed along with any flow of funds or contractual arrangements
DPM
between/through them?
81. Have short descriptions/TORs of the roles and the qualifications of OGC/ ☐ ☐
technical staff and consultants to be procured for completion of
DPM
activities been provided? Are these well-defined and relevant?
82. Is the grant implementation period defined in accordance with the OGC ☐ ☐
terms of the legal agreement with the grantee (NDA/DP)?
Section 5.3 Risk and mitigation measures
83. Will any existing operating manuals or similar documents of the NDA ORMC ☐ ☐
and/or Delivery Partner be used as part of the implementation Complia
arrangements? nce
84. Have all non-financial risks (e.g. AML/CFT, sanctions, integrity) been ORMC ☐ ☐
identified18? Complia
nce
85. Have details been provided on the mechanisms/procedures for ML/FT ORMC ☐ ☐
and prevention of integrity violations? Complia
nce
86. Has the DP described its ability to mitigate the above risks? ORMC ☐ ☐
Complia
nce
18 Definitions of key compliance related terminology is provided in the GCF AML/CFT Policy and AML/CFT
Standards.


87. What are the mechanisms to report wrongdoing? ORMC ☐ ☐
Complia
nce
88. Has a compliance risk assessment been undertaken and described in ORMC ☐ ☐
the proposal? Complia
nce
89. If applicable, does the proposal contain a risk matrix table that includes ORMC ☐ ☐
lessons learned in the implementation of past readiness grants or Risk
similar projects (especially if the NDA/Delivery Partner has already
implemented or is implementing readiness grants)?
90. If applicable, the NDA/DP already has multiple readiness grants ORMC ☐ ☐
currently under implementation from the GCF and other donors, what Risk
is the capacity of the NDA/DP to manage multiple grants
simultaneously and include in the risk matrix table in section 5.3?
91. Does the proposal contain a risk analysis table consistent and ORMC ☐ ☐
complementary with the ToC diagram in section 3 and the Risk
procurement plan in section 6?
92. Does the risk analysis table include potential for delays in ORMC ☐ ☐
implementation at start-up from procurement, project team set up, Risk
etc.?
93. In the risk matrix table in sub-section 5.3, are mitigation measures ORMC ☐ ☐
described as actions and not just statements? Risk
94. Is the project’s anticipated duration and implementation schedule ORMC ☐ ☐

reasonable based on the risk matrix table in section 5.3? Risk
95. Is the proposal within the scope of endorsed CIC-RWG decisions? DCP ☐ ☐
Section 5.4 Monitoring
96. Has the proposal described how monitoring will be conducted, by DPM ☐ ☐
whom or by which organization, with what frequency, and how results
of monitoring will be fed back into the implementation of the proposal?
97. Have monitoring tools been identified or will they be developed to track DPM ☐ ☐
the progress of activities, results indicators and risks and
assumptions?
98. Are monitoring tools (identified or to-be-developed) appropriate for the DPM ☐ ☐
identified activities, indicators, risks, and assumptions?
99. Are there any plans to build/strengthen skills of the NDA, DP and other DPM ☐ ☐
stakeholders to use the monitoring tools?
100. Is there a description of the exit strategy (how project sustainability will DPM ☐ ☐
be ensured in the long run and how this will be monitored after the
project is implemented with support from the GCF) including the
systematic capturing of lessons learned and knowledge management


and/or the transfer of capacity and skills to the NDA and other relevant
stakeholders at the national and subnational levels?
101. Does the proposal include the number of progress reports and their DPM ☐ ☐
frequency? Will the reports be reviewed and approved by the NDA(s)
before submission to the GCF?
Section 5.5 Other relevant information
102. Is there a description on how and why the NDA selected the Delivery ORMC ☐ ☐
Partner to implement the proposal? Risk
103. Does the proposal provide a mechanism to transfer skills and DCP/DP ☐ ☐
knowledge to the NDA or other relevant national stakeholders? M
Sub-section 6.1 Budget plan
104. Is the budget prepared without transforming the original template? DSS ☐ ☐
Finance
105. Is the budget plan coordinated with implementation schedule and DSS ☐ ☐
activities proposed? Finance
106. Is the appropriate budget category selected to develop the budget DSS ☐ ☐
proposal? Finance
107. Is the DP fee budgeted within the approved fee cap (8.5%)? DSS ☐ ☐
Finance
108. Is the project management cost budgeted within the approved cap DSS ☐ ☐
(7.5%) with detailed cost breakdown? Finance
109. Is the contingency budget below 3%? Is this included at the output DSS ☐ ☐
level and not for PMC? Finance
110. Are all of the costs under the PMC eligible? Please consult the list of DSS ☐ ☐
ineligible costs in this RPSP Guidebook. Finance
111. Are the international and local consultant rates benchmarked against DSS ☐ ☐
the market? If not, is there justification? Finance
112. Is FMCA conducted for the Delivery Partner or Implementing Entity DSS ☐ ☐
covering the relevant assessment pillars (financial management, Finance
project or programme management, legal and organizational
structure, procurement etc.)?
113. Is the Delivery Partner or Implementing Entity overhead costs, service DSS ☐ ☐
charge or fee included in the PMC Budget and not in the output Finance
budget?
114. Is co-financing available and complete detail provided in the proposal DSS ☐ ☐
budget? Finance


115. Are the consultants engaged and compensated according to a daily DSS ☐ ☐
rate and deliverables and (ideally) not on monthly/time basis? Finance
116. Is there any plan to hire “Project staff” under DP staff contracts for the DSS ☐ ☐
project duration? Are the staff roles and responsibilities separate from Finance
international/national consultants?
117. Some FWA partners are allowed to charge staff cost against budget. DSS ☐ ☐
Has sufficient justification been provided to show that staff is more Finance
efficient? Do the budget notes provide clarity on staff recovery cost?
118. Detailed budget notes are important. Are all budget notes stated with DSS ☐ ☐
detailed information including budget calculation, travel place of Finance
departure, destination, number of training participants, DSA, ticket
price?
119. Does the total “expenditure plan” amount match the “total outcome DSS ☐ ☐
budget” Finance
120. The DP must know that it has to report interest income and investment DSS ☐ ☐
income on funds received from GCF. Finance
121. Terminal evaluation is not required for any Readiness grant. The DP DSS ☐ ☐
should not state or budget any costs associated with the TE in the Finance
proposed budget.
Section 6.2 Procurement plan
122. Is the Procurement plan prepared using requested template? DSS ☐ ☐

Procure
ment
123. Is the procurement plan completed properly (items listed per DSS ☐ ☐
categories, quantities and thresholds indicated, etc.)? Procure
ment
124. Are consultant titles stated in the Procurement plan? DSS ☐ ☐

Procure
ment
125. In case there is a single source procurement indicated in the DSS ☐ ☐

Procurement Plan, has the DP included adequate justification? Procure
ment
Section 6.3 Human Resources (HR) Plan

126. Is the HR plan prepared using requested template? DSS ☐ ☐
(Finance
&Procur
ement)
127. Are all details provided (i.e. posts, salaries, dates of recruitments, DSS ☐ ☐
etc.)? (Finance
&Procur
ement)

Section 6.4 Implementation Plan
128.
Is the budget plan coordinated with the implementation schedule and DSS ☐ ☐
proposed activities? Finance
129.
Has a realistic implementation period based on the proposed scope of DPM ☐ ☐
activities been clearly spelled out in the proposal? The proposed
duration should include a realistic timeframe to undertake
procurement-related functions and project inception for scheduled
activities.
130.
Has an implementation schedule with activities, milestones, DPM ☐ ☐
deliverables, and timelines been provided and has it been logically
sequenced?
Annex 2. Leveraging GCF Readiness support to develop a climate-aligned

financial sector
Why the financial sector?
Given the fiscal pressure in most developing countries, especially in light of the Covid-19
economic crisis, mobilizing private capital is essential to fund the budgets measuring in the
trillions of dollars that will be required to foster low-emission and climate-resilient development
pathways. The private sector and the broader financial system must therefore play a key role
in achieving the Paris Agreement goals by investing in low-emission and climate-resilient
infrastructure and technologies, financing climate change adaptation projects and supporting
the transition away from carbon-intensive sectors. For this to happen, countries and
governments must transform their domestic financial systems, including central banks,
regulators, and financial institutions, to channel finance in alignment with Nationally
Determined Contributions (NDCs).
How readiness can be used to develop a climate-aligned financial sector
Given their role in national policymaking, NDA engagement in transforming the domestic
financial sector is crucial. There are many options for using readiness funding toward this goal.
Selecting the relevant activities will depend on country priorities and the level of climate
finance capacity already existing within the country. In the sections below, we provide
illustrative activities that NDAs may wish to include in a readiness proposal dedicated to
building a climate-aligned financial sector. They are organized according to the stage of
climate finance activity existing in the country. Most proposals will include activities from
multiple sections as the timelines to implement the activities may take multiple years.
When developing the proposal idea, it is important to engage with GCF Regional Desks for
planning purposes.

Identify national priorities and needs
An initial step should include identifying national climate priorities, primarily through NDCs,
national climate plans and/or the GCF Country Programme, and undertaking an assessment
of barriers and opportunities for the domestic financial sector to finance priority climate
projects. The NDA and Delivery Partner should undertake a consultative process with
stakeholders from the public and private sectors along with civil society and other local
organizations. In some cases, these activities have already been completed by the country
and the NDA can focus on more targeted financial sector interventions described in
subsequent sections. If this is the case, NDAs and Delivery Partners should incorporate this
analysis into the proposal to provide the necessary context and justification for the support
request.
Indicative readiness activities:
1. Conducting a barrier analysis for private sector financing;
2. Engaging with key financial sector stakeholders through workshops and consultations;
3. Conducting an institutional mapping exercise and capacity needs assessment;
4. Identifying domestic institutions for accreditation to GCF as Direct Access Entities;
and/or
5. Developing an action plan or roadmap for more targeted green finance activities going
forward.
Approved Readiness grants:
Jamaica: Mobilizing Private Sector to Support Low-Carbon and Climate Resilient
Development in Jamaica and other CARICOM States
Honduras: Enhancing Honduras’s Access to GCF for climate investments
Build green finance knowledge and capacity of financial sector stakeholders
After completing the mapping exercise and needs assessment, the NDA may wish to allocate
resources towards building capacity of key financial sector stakeholders such as regulators
and policymakers, central banks, national development banks, local financial institutions, and
banking associations. This may also include supporting national institutions for GCF
accreditation.
1. Conducting trainings to build the capacity of key financial sector stakeholders;
2. Engaging in South-South exchange to gather and report on best practices from other
countries and/or international organizations;
3. Establishing national committees or working groups to facilitate sustainable finance
initiatives in the country; and/or
4. Supporting financial institutions in gaining accreditation to GCF through gap analyses
and capacity building.
Colombia: Supporting the implementation of the Colombian Pilots of Financial Innovation –
Green Protocol
Vanuatu: Mobilizing the Vanuatu Private Sector towards climate change action
Mexico: Readiness Support for Country Programming and Direct Access in Mexico

Develop and issue green finance regulations or guidelines
The next stage in creating a more climate-aligned financial sector involves developing
guidelines for policymakers and financial institutions to be followed either on a voluntary basis
or mandatorily through regulations. These guidelines can define what green investment means
and how to report on it, as well as encouraging minimum green investment levels. Once
guidelines are developed, they should be disseminated to relevant stakeholders throughout
the public and private sectors.
1. Creating a green finance taxonomy to define green investments in the country;19
2. Issuing green finance guidelines to be adopted either voluntarily or mandatorily by the
financial sector such as:
a. Environmental and social risk management tools to be adopted by financial
institutions;
b. Climate risk and carbon accounting disclosure requirements;
c. Minimum portfolio requirements for green investments; and
d. Suggestions for new green financial instruments.
3. Developing central bank policies that promote green investments from the financial
sector, including:
a. Credit lines to local financial institutions for green investments;
b. Differing risk weightings and capital requirements for green and brown assets;
and
c. Climate risk reporting and stress-test requirements.
Armenia: Scaling up Green Finance practices in the Republic of Armenia
Bangladesh: Up scaling regulatory landscape of Green Banking for Shariah Based Banks and
Financial Institutions in Bangladesh
Promote knowledge sharing and peer learning
To ensure that best practices are used in developing green finance guidelines, as well as to
uptake of the guidelines among stakeholders, resources should be dedicated to peer learning
and knowledge sharing. This can be within the country, bilaterally with other countries, or with
international organizations promoting green finance.
1. Supporting knowledge sharing among financial institutions, regulators and ministries
through forums or working groups with sustainable finance champions;
2. Engaging with industry groups and micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises, which
will be the end users of green finance, to develop sustainability roadmaps or green
labelling standards by sector;
19 See World Bank’s “Developing a National Green Taxonomy: A World Bank Guide” as an example, available at
<http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/953011593410423487/pdf/Developing-a-National-Green-
Taxonomy-A-World-Bank-Guide.pdf>

3. Organizing awareness-raising programmes to promote the guidelines and green

finance in general; and
4. Connecting with international organizations that promote green finance to share best
practices and conduct capacity-building exercises.
Regional (Argentina, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Paraguay, Uruguay): Enhancing
Climate Finance and Investment in LAC Banking Sector
Regional (Panama, Morocco, Brazil, Peru, and South Africa) Strengthening the capacities of
national and regional development banks, which are members of the International
Development Finance Club (IDFC), to access GCF resources
Develop green financial products, institutions, and markets
Once green finance has been socialized among the financial sector and there is buy-in from
key stakeholders, NDAs may develop more targeted proposals to scale up green finance
within their countries. These proposals can be designed to create new green financial
products, green national financing vehicles, or to create a more conducive environment for
green finance in capital markets.
1. Establishing a national green finance institution or fund;
2. Creating a stock exchange dedicated to sustainable investments;
3. Creating new green financial products such as energy savings insurance or weather
index-based insurance;
4. Developing national green bond principles and a green bond listing on the stock
exchange; and
5. Developing project pipelines for submission to GCF that aim to leverage green finance.
Cambodia: Design of a Cambodian Institution for Green Financing
Jamaica: Facilitating an enabling environment for a Caribbean Green Bond Listing on the
Jamaica Stock Exchange
Mongolia: Energy Savings Insurance Model Development
Mongolia: Enhancing Access to Green Finance in Mongolia
Monitor, evaluate and adapt
Developing a system to monitor and evaluate the results of green finance initiatives is essential
for them to be continuously improved to increase their impact on the ground. There are many
opportunities for governments and financial institutions to leverage technology to increase
efficiency in monitoring and evaluation.
1. Developing tools that can be used by regulators and financial institutions to track the
volume and performance of green investments;
2. Creating an online knowledge platform to track where climate finance is being directed
and identify gaps that can be used by public and private sector stakeholders; and

3. Establishing a formal procedure for evaluating the results of green finance measures
and proposing improvements to policymakers.
Panama: Aligning financial flows of the financial sector in Panama with the Paris Agreement
climate change goals
Costa Rica: Aligning financial flows of the financial sector in Costa Rica with the Paris
Agreement climate change goals
Annex 3. Readiness Needs Assessment framework
As a result of decision B.22/11, the Board authorized the Secretariat to consider “multiple-year
strategic Readiness implementation requests”. This allows NDAs to submit a single Readiness
proposal for up to a total of USD 3 million over a maximum of 36 months.
In order to submit proposals as a multiple-year cap request, countries must ensure that they
meet one of the two following criteria:
• EITHER The country has submitted a finalized Country Programme that contains an
analysis of the country’s readiness needs;
• OR The country has undertaken a country readiness needs assessment and developed a
country readiness work plan to address those needs.
Countries are meant to conduct a self-assessment of their readiness needs by using a
standardized framework developed by the Secretariat to identify the key gaps in its capacity
to access climate finance and to develop and implement related projects. This annex will
constitute the proposed framework for self-assessment of readiness needs (or Readiness
Needs Assessment), which is currently awaiting board decisions prior to development.
The section on Readiness needs under Part II above describes a framework for country NDC
implementation and investment planning and distinct steps for countries to take for an
integrated, systemic, country-owned climate planning approach to accessing climate finance.
This framework also illustrates the support the GCF can offer through the readiness
programme and other support programmes and provides indicative activities that can help
capacitate countries at each step.
The Secretariat will be developing a climate investment planning guide that will provide much
more information to better prepare partners and countries. This guide will help countries
identify specific technical gaps in the climate evidence and financial engineering and how
readiness can be deployed to fill these gaps. This guidance, however, is dependent on two
critical board decisions that will be taken at its 36th meeting in July 2023 – the updated Strategic
plan for 2024–2027 and the revised Readiness Strategy. Since the Readiness Needs
Assessment guidance will largely be informed by these documents, this annex is intended to
be completed post B.36.
Once developed, the Readiness Needs Assessment guidance is intended to present specific
step-by-step guidance on how to conduct a readiness needs assessment for specific
categories including:
• Institutional arrangements
• Multi-stakeholder engagement
• Monitoring and reporting
• Identifying climate investment planning needs (see above)
Elements for the development of the Readiness Needs Assessment guidance will
include:

Readiness needs assessment framework

Countries are encouraged to consider the following guidelines that demonstrate how a country
may choose to undertake a national readiness needs assessment. NDA and Delivery Partners
should consider the types of institutions, policies, and procedures necessary to become ready
for scaled up, transformational climate finance programming.
The multi-stakeholder readiness needs assessment should:
(a) Be conducted by the NDA in consultation with other stakeholders;
(b) Appraise a variety of essential capacities, institutional mechanisms and technical skills;
(c) Consider capacity-building initiatives and assessments for climate change done under
other auspices and include feedback on previous Readiness Programme support;
(d) Establish a baseline to help the NDA and the Secretariat better understand how to
approach Readiness support in an integrated, systemic, country-owned climate
planning manner;
(e) Be bolstered by technical guidance from the Secretariat regarding its application;
(f) Consider identified capacity needs through existing processes and documents,
including National Communications, National Capacity Self Assessments, and others
undertaken by other funds, bilateral or multilateral agencies, and multilateral
development banks, and;
(g) Give due attention to the issues of ESS, gender, and IP integration.
The following section provides a non-exhaustive list of the particular institutions, structures,
and technical skills and capacities NDA should consider when undertaking such a readiness
needs assessment.
Institutions and Governance
1. The National designated authority has the proper human and technical capacity to fulfil its
role, which includes coordination, stakeholder engagement, programming, and priority
setting, and increasing complementarity and coherence of climate finance flows. The NDA
is engaged with other climate and sustainable development Focal Points across ministries
and subnational governments, as well as with the private sector and civil society, including
during the development of a Country Programme. The coordination mechanism includes
ministries, the subnational governments, and other providers of climate finance, including
the donor community.
2. Direct access entities and candidates for accreditation are able to meet and maintain GCF
standards for accreditation. These entities engage in the programming process at the
national level with their own strategies (Entity Work Programmes) aligned with those of the
country. Technical capacity and skills exist to develop, implement, and monitor
transformational investments for low-carbon and climate-resilient development, which
includes the ability to use a wide range of financial instruments and structures and the
ability to blend sources of finance.
3. Executing Entities are national and local partners with DAEs and international AEs and
have the skills to receive, deploy, and report to DAEs and AEs on the use of GCF funds.
Executing Entities are involved in the programming process with the ability to fully comply
with relevant GCF compliance policies, standards and safeguards.
4. Domestic private sector stakeholders and providers of climate finance are engaged and
able to identify, appraise and finance low-carbon and climate-resilient investment
opportunities, including co-finance and parallel finance for GCF projects. The banking and
financial sectors use the concepts of green finance and can evaluate investments based

on their financial, social, and environmental costs and benefits. Small and medium
enterprises are aware of green business services and can access financing for their
climate-relevant products and services.
5. Subnational governments are active participants in the programming process at the
national level with Focal Points for climate change established at local and provincial
levels. Subnational governments can gather and report data and information to the NDA
for programming and investment decision-making purposes.
6. Non-governmental and civil society organizations, including traditionally marginalized
groups such as women and girls, indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities, are engaged
with and can participate in the planning process at national and subnational levels. Existing
networks and data-gathering initiatives are tapped to feed into the investment
programming process at the national level. Civil society organizations and other groups
are included in the investment monitoring and evaluation protocols for climate finance.
Policy Environment
1. The national policy regime addresses specific risks and opportunities regarding climate
change, with a legal framework containing compliance measures and incentives to
address identified risks and opportunities. Related acts and/or policies have the force of
law through parliamentary approval that vests authority for managing and coordinating
national response in a specific institution and coordination mechanism. National guidelines
on incorporating climate risks and opportunities are established and used in development
and other planning processes.
2. Long-term strategies with respect to low-carbon and climate-resilient development are
aligned with the national development vision. These strategies account for the goals of the
UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement and represent a pathway for the country to realize its
obligations and contributions under the international climate agreements. The strategies
provide an iterative pathway for the development of successive NDCs and NAPs through
2050 in line with the UNFCCC and Paris Agreement and include investment priorities and
action plans.
3. The country has developed an NDC with high-level political support that provides a clear
and transparent justification for its fairness and level of ambition, with an inclusive
procedure for regular updating. The NDC draws from the national policy regime and is
informed by substantive sectoral strategies, backstopped by a monitoring, reporting and
verification system for climate finance flows, which are tracked and tagged in the public
financial system. The country has developed a costed action plan to transform NDC
priorities into climate investments.
4. An iterative process to develop and update the NAP is in place with a robust network to
produce the necessary data to inform vulnerability and risk assessments. The NAP
process includes local knowledge and groups at highest risk and reflects a gender-
responsive approach with cooperation from marginalized communities. The country has
produced a resilience investment plan to draw in private sector actors who are informed
of the opportunities in financing adaptation priorities.
5. Market, technology, regulatory and other barriers to scaled-up investment are identified,
assessed, and removed through improved sectoral policies, incentives, and other
measures. Appropriate technology solutions to climate risks and mitigation opportunities
are tailored to the national and/or local context. The legal framework is conducive to such
investments and incentivizes low-carbon and climate-resilient projects and programmes.
Pipeline Development

1. Investment prioritization methodologies are established and deployed to ensure that public
investment is targeted at the projects and programmes delivering the highest impact in
terms of mitigation and adaptation benefits. National and subnational climate strategies
and programming documents (Country Programmes, DAE Work Programmes, NDCs,
NAPs, etc.) are aligned and assessed to identify synergies.
2. De-risking tools and methods are developed and deployed to attract investment into
priority sectors for both mitigation and adaptation and investment sectors are de-risked
through innovative financial instruments and structures.
3. Concept notes for submission to the GCF are built on a solid basis of climate rationale,
address the investment criteria of the Fund, and are aligned with the sectoral guidance
issued by the Secretariat.
4. Pilot projects are identified and assessed for their ability to be scaled-up. Lessons learned
from previous investment and implementation experience are applied to new and/or
innovative projects and programmes.
Information, data and knowledge

1. National climate change context has been assessed and communicated through robust,
down-scaled vulnerability assessments and emissions-reduction scenarios, including for
priority sectors.
2. Climate-relevant information is captured, stored, and shared at local, subnational, and
national levels and is accessible for use by stakeholders in investment planning and
development processes.
3. Knowledge tools enable key government and non-government actors to link climate
change impacts in the planning and budgeting process.
4. Monitoring, reporting, verification, and evaluation systems are in place to track domestic
and international climate finance flows and the impacts of funded activities. The
information is analysed at the national and subnational levels for iterative feedback into
the investment planning process.
5. Planning and decision-making processes with respect to climate finance programming are
informed by data and knowledge produced at local, subnational, and national levels.
Annex 4. List of potential readiness activities
Please note that these are indicative activities that can be considered for readiness support.
Countries are encouraged to formulate their activities based on their specific needs as long
as these activities are aligned with the Board-approved objectives of the GCF Readiness
Programme.
Objective 1: Capacity-building
1.1. Support the NDA or Focal Points
• Supporting country NDA or Focal Points and the network/systems that enable them to
fulfil their roles, responsibilities, and policy requirements to become operational and
effective. This might include training, technical assistance or Information and
Communications Technology support to the NDA or Focal Point staff in areas relevant
to GCF objectives. It might also include the oversight of GCF-funded activities such as
project and programme development and management, international procurement,
accounting, E&S safeguards, gender, oversight, planning and monitoring and
evaluation processes;

• Establishing or strengthening NDA mechanisms for interinstitutional coordination,

including engagement and other climate funds;
• Technical assistance to sign GCF Privileges & Immunities legal agreement;
• Defining and operationalizing essential decision-making processes at the NDA level
for no-objection letters and consideration/facilitation of climate change projects.
Support might consider the implementation of processes, tools, or systems to facilitate
climate change project revision and prioritization; and
• Supporting country NDA or Focal Points to enhance their capacity to implement the
GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy (B.19/11)
1.2 Support Direct Access Applicants and accredited Direct Access Entities (DAEs)
• Supporting processes, tools, or systems to identify and nominate DAEs;
• Conducting an institutional gap analysis of potential applicants against the fiduciary
standards, safeguards, and compliance policies of the GCF;
• Supporting direct access applicants with training, capacity development or improved
systems in areas such as ESS, the GCF gender policies, procurement, monitoring,
reporting and evaluation, to close gaps and meet the GCF accreditation standards;
• Building the capacities of accredited DAEs with training, capacity development or
improved systems to maintain the GCF accreditation standards and effectively
implement GCF-funded activities;
• Strengthening institutional capacities of accredited DAEs with technical assistance,
training, Information and Communications Technology solutions to improve
accreditation status and effective implementation of GCF-funded activities; and
• Supporting accredited entities, particularly the direct access entities, to enhance their
capacity to implement the GCF Indigenous Peoples Policy (B.19/11).
1.3 Support all other relevant stakeholders in the country
• Training and engaging other stakeholders such as national and subnational
government officials and staff, the private sector, non-governmental organizations and
civil society organizations, and academia in areas relevant to GCF (e.g. climate
change, business opportunities, access to climate finance, implementation and
oversight of climate change projects in the country, and project and programme
design);
• Technical assistance, training, and Information and Communications Technology
solutions for the establishment of stakeholder engagement mechanisms to support
planning, programming, and implementation of GCF-funded activities;
• Strengthening information sharing with stakeholders through websites, forums,
information platforms on GCF-funded activities and project or programme
implementation; and
• Enhancing indigenous peoples’ engagement in GCF related activities:
o Supporting the development priorities of indigenous peoples through programs,
(such as community-driven development programmes).
o Supporting the preparation of participatory profiles of indigenous peoples to
document their culture, demographic structure, gender and intergenerational
relations and social organization, institutions, production systems, religious
beliefs and resource-use patterns.

o Facilitating partnerships among the government, indigenous peoples

organizations, civil society organizations, and the private sector to promote the
climate resiliency of indigenous peoples communities.
o Building the capacity of indigenous peoples to ensure their full and effective
engagement with GCF at all levels (see B.19/11, para 96).
Objective 2: Strategic Frameworks
2.1 Support the Country Programming process
• Developing initial Country Programmes or updating already developed Country
Programmes to guide GCF investment and programming of GCF Readiness and
Preparatory Support resources.
2.2 Support strategic framework development
• Undertaking Readiness Needs Assessments to develop an action plan with strategies
for Readiness support;
• Developing a long-term, low-emission development strategy;
• Revising or updating the country’s Nationally Determined Contribution, its financing
strategy or related policies;
• Developing Monitoring Reporting and Verification MRV) systems and/or making them
operational for tracking internal and external climate finance flows;
• Undertaking the necessary studies, modelling, and other research to enhance strategic
frameworks, improve sectoral expertise, and enhance enabling environments for GCF
programming in low-emission climate-resilient investment that might include risk and
vulnerability assessment, databases, climate change scenario modelling, impact
modelling, assessments, or research studies;
• Developing sectoral strategic framework or associated plans, which are focused on
strategy such as climate finance strategies, low-emission climate resilient agroforestry
policies or plans;
• Taking stock of existing strategies, policies, and needs assessments in order to
streamline policy and planning processes with regards to climate finance;
• Identifying and prioritizing appropriate climate technologies and solutions, including a
Technology Needs Assessment, feasibility studies and Technology Action Plans;
• Formulate private sector engagement strategy including a roadmap; and
• Creating enabling environments for mobilizing climate finance (e.g. development of
Green Bond frameworks, Debt for Climate Swap strategies and roadmap, establishing
sustainable banking roundtables, etc.).
2.3 Support the development of Entity Work Programmes
• Developing AE work programmes in alignment with country priorities, including
Country Programmes and the GCF result areas.
2.4 Support transforming and attracting private sector investment
• Developing strategies for transforming and attracting private sector investment for low
emissions and resilience, including by incubating new business models and/or
innovative financial mechanisms and schemes to increase low-emission investment;
• Enabling private sector participation, including by supporting the preparation of
preliminary studies, tender documents, or advisory services for the establishment of
public-private partnerships; and

• Completing strategies, roadmaps, studies and policy incentives to foster private

financing for Country Programme implementation and/or low-emissions climate-
resilient development.
Objective 3: National Adaptation Plans and Adaptation Planning
3.1 Support adaptation planning governance and institutional coordination
• Developing or updating national, sub-national and /or sectoral adaptation plans;
• Developing or strengthening adaptation policies and/or regulations for integrating
adaptation actions/measures in sectoral, subnational, and national development
strategies and plans;
• Strengthening or establishing inter- and intra-institutional coordination and decision-
making mechanisms; and
• Conducting or strengthening stakeholder engagement frameworks, agreements and
awareness raising.
3.2 Support evidence production to design adaptation solutions for maximum impact
• Establishing or strengthening adaptation impact monitoring, evaluation and learning
systems for strategic planning and investment; and
• Conducting studies on climate vulnerability and identification of adaptation solutions to
strengthen adaptation investment.
3.3 Support the catalysis of private sector engagement in adaptation
• Developing strategies, policies, and incentives to foster private investment in
adaptation solutions;
• Developing assessments and knowledge products to inform the private sector on
adaptation options and GCF finance; and
• Providing capacity-building to the private sector on adaptation options.
3.4 Support increased adaptation finance
• Establishing mechanisms to prioritize adaptation options based on objective criteria;
• Developing Concept Notes for adaptation priority actions, prefeasibility studies, and
impact potential assessments;
• Developing funding proposals and associated studies or assessments; and
• Developing national systems for tracking national and international adaptation finance
flows.
Objective 4: Paradigm-shifting Pipeline Development
• Identifying programmes and projects that advance national priorities as contained in
NDCs, NAPs and low-emission and climate-resilient development strategies and align
with the GCF Results Management Framework;
• Supporting the development and submission of project Concept Notes for priority
sectors;
• Assessing mitigation and impact potential in adaptation for project Concept Notes;
• Conducting prefeasibility studies and the necessary evidence-base to support the
climate rationality of the proposed Concept Note;
• Developing and submitting funding proposals from accredited DAEs and conducting
assessments and studies for the development of such funding proposals;

• Developing and submitting funding proposals and associated studies that target SIDS,
LDCs, and African states; and
• Developing Project Preparation Facility (PPF) requests and funding proposals.
Objective 5: Knowledge Sharing and Learning
• Developing knowledge products by NDAs, DAEs and Delivery Partners on Low
Emission and Climate Resilient Development methodologies, lessons learned, or best
practices extracted from within the country and from other countries (South-South
cooperation). Knowledge products might include lessons learned, reports, videos,
multimedia products or communication material;
• Developing knowledge products and disseminating lessons learned in local languages;
• Establishing processes, systems and/or platforms by NDAs, DAEs and Delivery
Partners for identification of best practices, lessons learned and knowledge
management; and
• Establishing and operationalizing partnerships to foster development and
dissemination of methods, frameworks, and information systems for enhanced climate
finance programming at subnational, national, and regional levels.
Annex 5. Non-eligible activities
In alignment with decision B.08/1120, and taking into consideration the scope of the Readiness
Programme, activities and initiatives that fall into the following categories are ineligible:
i) Activities/initiatives that are only oriented towards socio-economic and environmental
development with no climate benefits;
ii) Activities/initiatives that may have climate-related benefits but that are not in alignment
with the GCF vision/result areas/sectoral guides. For example:
• An initiative on the blending of ethanol with fossil fuel may have some climate benefits
in terms of emissions reduction but is not aligned with the GCF focus areas as the GCF
is trying to move countries away from fossil fuels (see the GCF sectoral guides on
energy access and power generation and on transport); and
• An initiative on improving air quality may have some climate benefits in terms of
greenhouse gas emission reductions, however the proposal would need to be very
clear on the linkage of the activities to the potential for climate change mitigation.
iii) Activities/initiatives that fall within the scope of funding proposals, unless pre-approved by
the GCF Secretariate on a case-by-case basis. For example:
• Planting of mangrove seedlings should be considered in the context of a funding
proposal. However, the Readiness Programme can support the development of
mangroves rehabilitation/restoration policy/framework, Concept Notes and pre-
feasibility studies as necessary;
20The GCF board, through the decision B.08/11 decides that the readiness support will be implemented in
conformity with the administrative policies of the Fund, including its procurement guidelines, and will address any
conflicts of interest. The same decision, in Annex XVIII, section 1.4, states that the Fund reserves the right to
conduct an external/independent financial review, audit or evaluation or to take any other action that it deems
necessary to ensure accountability in the use of funds

• The implementation of climate finance mobilization strategy for a national/regional

institution through funding resource mobilization exercises/events falls within the
scope of funding proposals while the Readiness Programme can support the
development of that strategy; and
• The establishment and operationalization of a Fund for climate finance should be
considered in the context of a funding proposal.
iv) Activities/initiatives that relate to participation in international conferences and meetings
such as COPs, NAP Expo, Davos Forum and One planet Summit. Unless co-financed by
another source, the GCF Secretariat does not encourage the implementation of Readiness
grants on the margin of international conferences, which would set a precedent for
supporting the participation in those conferences under the Readiness Programme;
v) Activities that relate to the preparation and development of readiness proposals.
vi) Activities/initiatives that relate to the payment of salaries and expenses for existing
personnel of the NDA or any other beneficiary institutions from the Readiness Programme;
and
vii) Final evaluations are no longer required for Readiness grants (NAP and Non-NAP
Readiness grants) as there is a Readiness Result Management Framework (RRMF) that
provides a forward-looking system to monitor and track results of GCF Readiness grants,
assess the existing Readiness portfolio and extract lessons for further improvement of the
Readiness Programme. Therefore, final evaluations are no longer an eligible activity under
the Readiness Programme, unless the cost will be supported through co-financing.
Annex 6. Eligible Costs for NDA and/or Focal Point Direct Support
In decisions B.08/11 and B.12/32, the GCF Board made specific recommendations for direct
financial support to NDAs through the Readiness Programme. These resources are to be
drawn from the overall USD 1 million annual approvals cap per country.
Parameters for NDA or Focal Point funding
• In recognition of their important role in strengthening country ownership and alignment

with national priorities, NDAs or Focal Points may request direct support by the Fund
of up to USD 300,000 to cover eligible costs for a calendar period.
• NDAs or Focal Points must commit to using the GCF readiness support solely for the
purpose described in the funding request and in accordance with the approved budget.
• NDAs or Focal Points must undertake the FMCA approval process in order to be able
to directly access the Readiness Programme.
Eligible costs for direct NDA or Focal Point funding
Eligible costs include the following items:
• Human resources development: Funding for human resources development will

include cost for training NDA or Focal Point staff members in areas relevant to the
objectives of the Fund such as project and programme development, international
procurement, accounting, oversight, planning and monitoring and evaluation
processes. This may include short-term or provisional assignments for external
contractors to support NDAs or Focal Points in exercising their functions outlined in
decision B.04/05 (e).

• Technical assistance: Technical assistance can be used for costs directly related to
technical or management assistance to support core NDA or Focal Point functions
including development of strategic priorities for engagement with the Fund, programme
and project oversight and alignment with other national bodies’ stakeholder
engagement (such as civil society, academia and the private sector), dialogues with
implementing entities and intermediaries.
• Planning and administration:

- Meeting expenses, training, workshops, and consultations
- Training and workshop organization and facilitation; and
- Consultations with non-governmental constituencies only (e.g. civil society, academia
and private sector) and processes to promote and improve the quality of stakeholder
participation, including travel costs and per diems for civil society participation.
- Limitations: An annual cap of USD 100,000 for stakeholder consultation meetings
• Communication materials: Printing, communication and IT costs associated with
functions related to performing functions mentioned in decision B.04/05 (e).
Annex 7. RRMF
For further details of the RRMS’s grant output level IRS, please refer to this link.
Annex 8. Sample Letter of Financial Support regional/multi-country proposals
[Letterhead of Institution]
[GCF Deputy Executive Director]

Green Climate Fund [Country],
[City], [Country], [Date]
Re: Readiness Support for the [Title of Proposal] with [DP]
Dear [Mr/Ms Deputy Executive Director],

We refer to the project “[Readiness Proposal title]” included in the Regional Readiness
Proposal submitted by the [Lead NDA Ministry] as National Designated Authority.
The undersigned is the duly authorized representative of the National Designated Authority of
[Country submitting the letter of Financial Support].
Pursuant to GCF decision B.08/10; the content of which we acknowledge to have reviewed,
we hereby communicate our no objection, it is implied that:

(a) The government of [Country submitting the letter of Financial Support] has no objection
to the proposal as included in the regional/multi-country Readiness Proposal;
(b) The activities as included in the regional/multi-country Readiness Proposal are in
conformity with the national priorities, strategies and plans of [Country submitting the
letter of Financial Support];
(c) In accordance with the GCF environmental and social safeguards, the proposal as
included in the regional/multi-country Readiness Proposal is in conformity with relevant
national laws and regulations.
We also confirm that our national process ascertaining no objection to the readiness activities
as included in the proposal has been duly followed. The Government of [Country submitting
the letter of Financial Support] commits to support the [DP] by allocating USD [Amount
allocated] of its budget in the year the proposal is approved.
We acknowledge that this letter will be made publicly available on the GCF website.
Yours sincerely,
[Focal Point signature]
cc: [DP Focal Points, NDA Focal Points]
Annex 9. Multiple-year strategic readiness proposals
This annex provides an overview of guidelines for developing and submitting multiple-year
strategic readiness implementation requests that allocate up to USD 3 million for three years.
Proposals submitted for this type of request may be referred to as “multiple-year cap”
proposals, while the standard type of request may be referred to as “single-year cap”
proposals.
In approving the revised Readiness Programme strategy for 2019–2021, the Board decided
that the Secretariat may accept multiple-year strategic readiness implementation requests.
The Board authorized the Secretariat to receive and approve proposals with a budget over
USD 1 million (and up to USD 3 million), for a maximum grant term of 36 months, provided
that the annual value of the proposal remains within the established annual cap of USD 1
million per country.
NDAs are advised that they may submit proposals using this multiple-year cap proposal and
proposals under the single-year cap, including joining regional or multi-country proposals,
provided that the cumulative commitments for approved proposals do not exceed the
Board-established cap of USD 1 million per country per year.
Criteria for submitting multiple-year Readiness proposals
To submit proposals as a multiple-year cap request, countries must ensure that they meet one
of the two following criteria:
• EITHER The country has submitted a finalized Country Programme that contains an
analysis of the country’s readiness needs;
• OR The country has undertaken a country Readiness Needs Assessment and developed
a country readiness work plan to address those needs.

If a country does not meet either of the two pre-requisites above, they may include support to
undertake such a needs assessment in a readiness proposal under the standard single-year
cap proposal. Interested NDAs should discuss such a request with the GCF Regional Desks.
NDAs are further advised of the following guidelines for submission under this type of
readiness request:
• Proposals should focus on addressing country readiness needs as identified in the needs
assessment in a strategic manner;
• Proposals may focus on a combination of outcomes under objectives 1, 2, 4 and/or 5, while
proposals for objective 3 (NAP/adaptational planning) are not eligible;
• Proposals with total budgets under USD 1 million can continue to be submitted under the
existing Readiness request format (“single-year cap” proposals); and
• Proposals should include only one nominated Delivery Partner, whether the NDA itself will
implement it, an AE, or another DP.
Core elements of a multiple-year strategic readiness implementation request
Multiple-year strategic readiness implementation requests include, among others, the
following elements:
• An overall work programme and budget plan for the period of the support requested, with
an overview of how the request is strategic in nature, including:
o Progressing from basic elements of readiness support (e.g. developing No
objection Letter processes, establishing NDA offices, assessing DAE applicants)
to more strategic support (e.g. accreditation/accreditation upgrades of DAEs,
technical support to develop Concept Notes for submission to the PPF, or through
the SAP or Funding Proposals);
o Taking a programmatic approach to readiness support requested, which may
include:
▪ Sequencing support for multiple work areas and stakeholders, including
NDAs and DAEs (e.g. to align Country Programmes and Entity Work
Programmes);
▪ Developing and implementing strategies to reduce or eliminate policy gaps
or market barriers;
▪ Catalysing and/or leveraging private sector investment in priority sectors,
including through the use or piloting of innovative financial instruments; or
▪ Developing Concept Notes, including for the SAP and PPF;
• Indicative annual work programmes and associated annual budget plans covering each
12-month period of the total request;
• Description of the objectives, outcomes, deliverables, and activities to be undertaken
during the request with associated baselines and targets and measurable indicators to
track results, and;
• Implementation schedule and implementation arrangements for the request, which will
also indicate the disbursement schedule, procurement plan, and a monitoring and
evaluation plan.
Submission guidance
NDAs should use the published proposal templates and submit the following documents as
part of the initial submission of a proposal under this modality:

1. Completed readiness proposal template (please ensure that “yes” is ticked in the box
for section 1.9) that covers the entire envisioned grant implementation period, not just
the first 12 months; please especially ensure that the Theory of Change (section 3),
Logical Framework (section 4), and Implementation Arrangements (section 5) are valid
for the entire envisioned grant implementation period;
2. Budget, procurement, and implementation plan (Excel file) for the entire envisioned
grant implementation period; and
3. Readiness needs assessment in line with the guidance provided in annex 3 of this
Guidebook; please ensure that a summary of the key findings of this needs
assessment is included in the Situation Analysis (section 2) of the proposal.
Implementation procedures
Under multiple-year cap proposal format, the Secretariat may review the entire proposal but
commit only up to an initial USD 1 million in funding to maintain the established USD 1 million
per country annual cap.
Where a country has submitted both types of readiness proposals in a given year – both a
single-year cap and a multiple-year cap proposal – NDAs are advised that the Secretariat will
approve and commit resources according to the disbursement schedule contained in the
approved proposals. It is therefore critical that NDAs and their Delivery Partner (if any) plan
for the strategic use of the USD 1 million annual caps.
For example:
• Country A: In Year 1, Country A submits a USD 2.5 million proposal under this modality
for 36-month implementation period. If the proposal is approved by the Secretariat in Year
1, then the first USD 1 million of the proposal would be committed against the Year 1 cap.
The second USD 1 million would be committed against the annual cap for the country for
Year 2. The final USD 0.5 million would be committed against the Year 3 cap. In this case,
it is important to point out that the Secretariat would not be in a position to approve
additional Readiness support for Country A in Years 1 or 2, since the annual caps would
have been exhausted for those calendar years. The Secretariat would be able to approve
and commit up to USD 0.5 million for Year 3 for Country A.
• Country B: In Year 1, Country B has a previously approved proposal under the single-year
cap request for USD 0.5 million for 18-month implementation, which is committed against
the Year 1 cap. Also in Year 1, the country submits a proposal under the multiple-year cap
for USD 1.75 million for 30-month implementation period and annual disbursement
schedule of USD 0.5 million in Year 1, USD 0.75 million in Year 2, and USD 0.5 million in
Year 3. If this multiple-year cap request is approved in Year 1, then the Secretariat would
commit up to USD 0.5 million for Year 1, then USD 0.75 million would be committed against
Year 2 cap, and the final USD 0.5 million would be committed against the Year 3 cap. In
this case, it is important to point out that the Secretariat would not be able to approve
additional readiness support for Country B in Year 1, since the annual caps would have
been exhausted for that calendar year. The Secretariat would be able to approve and
commit up to USD 0.25 million for Year 2 and up to USD 0.5 million in Year 3.
These scenarios are illustrated in the table below. If NDAs and their Delivery Partners are
unsure of how a given proposal or set of proposals will impact the annual cap, they should
confer with the relevant GCF regional Focal Points during development of the proposal and
prior to submission.

Table 17
SCENARIO TYPE OF GRANT TOTAL ANNUAL CAP APPROVAL

READINESS IMPLEMENTATION BUDGET YEAR
SUPPORT PERIOD (M USD)
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3
Country A Multiple-year 36 months 2.5 1 1 0.5
Country B Single-year 18 months 0.5 0.5 N/A N/A
Multiple-year 30 months 1.75 0.5 0.75 0.5
Annex 10. Readiness proposal templates
The Readiness proposal template can be found online and includes two files:
- A Word template including sections 1-5; and
- An Excel template including section 6, budget, procurement, implementation, and
disbursement plans.
Annex 11. Eligibility and benchmark for costs
This cost benchmark provides an indication of the average cost of the key readiness
outputs to guide NDA and DP when working on proposals. The study is based on all
Readiness proposals approved prior to 31 December 2021.
Table 18
Objectives - Outputs # Countries Median cost Median cost

requesting PLANNED EXECUTED
support (USD) (USD)
Objective 1. Capacity-building
Output 1.1.3 Decision-making processes 81 30,000 24,486

defined and operationalized at the NDA level for
No-Objection Letters
Output 1.2.2 Direct Access Applicants 77 74,728 82,542

supported with training, capacity development,
or improved systems to close gaps
Objective 2. Strategic Frameworks
Output 2.1.1 Country programmes endorsed by 61 90,000 72,461

GCF recipient country processes - those with
Initial CP developed with validation letter or CP
endorsed

Output 2.2.3 NDC updated or revised and/or 10 139,654

financing strategy or related policies
developed.
Output 2.3.1 Entity Work Programmes aligned 15 23,500
to Country Programmes developed and
submitted to GCF
Output 2.4.1 New business models incubated 27 60,000 33,000

and/or innovative financial mechanisms and
schemes created to increase low-emission and
climate-resilient investment
Objective 3. National Adaptation Plans and Adaptation Planning Processes
Output 3.1.1 National, sub-national and/or 51 132,490 130,726

sectoral adaptation plans developed or
updated
Output 3.4.2 Concept notes developed for 24 64,686

adaptation priority actions (with no associated
prefeasibility study)
Output 3.4.2 Concept notes developed for 14 108,811

adaptation priority actions (with associated
prefeasibility study) - includes grants with
partial or no executed budget
Objective 4. Pipeline development
Output 4.1.1 Concept notes for priority sectors 191 30,167 19,178
developed with the support of the RPSP for
submission to the GCF (with no associated
prefeasibility study)
Output 4.1.1 Concept notes for priority sectors 50 51,938 18,740

developed with the support of the RPSP for
submission to the GCF (with associated
prefeasibility study including grants with
partial or no executed budget)
Some of the outputs had a large variance reflecting different needs or quality of deliverables.
No attempt was made to adjust these benchmark values accordingly. The median was chosen
to control for outlier values.
Annex 12. List of GCF Board decisions related to readiness
Table 19
Date Decision Topic

Feb 2013 B.01-13/10 Rules of Procedure of the Board
The Board adopted modalities for Readiness Programme and decided to explore options for making
short-term progress on Readiness, including the initiation of work on operationalising a Readiness
phase. This included identifying and engaging with existing initiatives and programmes on Readiness
and preparatory support, to enhance learning and ensure coherence.
Feb 2013 B.01-13/10 Rules of Procedure of the Board
The Board adopted modalities for the Readiness Programme and decided to explore options for
making short-term progress on Readiness, including the initiation of work on operationalising a
readiness phase. This included identifying and engaging with existing initiatives and programmes on
readiness and preparatory support, to enhance learning and ensure coherence.
Sept 2013 B.05/14 Readiness Support and eligible activities
The Board decided that the GCF would provide Readiness support to the following activities:
• Enabling the preparation of Country Programmes;
• Strengthening in-country, GCF-related institutional capacities; and
• Enabling implementing entities to meet the fiduciary standards and environmental and
social safeguards of the GCF.
Feb 2014 B.06/11 Readiness Work Programme
The Board decided on a detailed work programme on readiness, with four priority activities:
• Establishing NDA/FPs;
• Strategic frameworks, including the preparation of country programmes;
• Selection of intermediaries or implementing entities; and
• Initial pipelines of programme and project proposals.
The Board allocates USD 1 million to the Secretariat to prepare a detailed programme of work on
readiness.
Oct 2014 B.08/11 Readiness Programme support and eligible

activities
The Board reaffirmed that GCF-related readiness support is a strategic priority for the GCF to
enhance country ownership and access and to help countries meet GCF objectives. Funding for the
Readiness Programme will be used to support activities including:
● Supporting NDA/Focal Points;
● Developing strategic frameworks for national engagement with the GCF;
● Enabling regional, national, and sub-national institutions to meet the accreditation standards of the
GCF; and
● Supporting the development of initial pipelines of programme and project proposals.
The Board also decided that 50% of readiness support would be allocated to particularly vulnerable
countries, including SIDS, LDCs and African states, and that each country will be limited to USD 1
million per calendar year as a readiness commitment, including up to USD 300,000 to help establish
an NDA/ Focal Point.

The Board allocated USD 15 million for the Readiness Programme and an additional USD 14 million
after receipt of the next semi-annual report.
July 2015 B.10/10 Readiness Programme and country

ownership
The Board reaffirmed the RPSP as a mechanism to enhance country ownership.
Nov 2015 B.11/04 Readiness Programme implementation
The Board requested that the Secretariat present a proposal to improve and simplify access to funds
for country programming and Readiness Programme support; decided that an additional USD 14
million was to be made available for the Readiness Programme; reaffirmed that the Readiness
Programme may support a voluntary country-driven national adaptation planning process; and
requested the Secretariat to present to GCF Board 12 a revised allocation system for readiness
support.
Mar 2016 B.12/32 Review of funding arrangements for RPSP
The Board requested the Secretariat to prepare a document for consideration by the Board identifying
alternative arrangements to readiness grant agreements aimed at disbursing readiness grants. The
Board requested the Secretariat to provide advance payments to countries or the delivery partners
that have signed readiness grant agreements to conclude agreement procedures.
June 2016 B.13/09 Adaptation Planning Process and Readiness

Programme.
The Board decided that the Executive Director could approve up to USD 3 million per country through
Readiness Programme modalities to support the formulation of national adaptation plans and/or other
national adaptation planning processes based on his/her assessment of country circumstances and
needs. The support for the formulation of national adaptation plans or other adaptation planning
processes should be established as a separate activity area of the Readiness Programme, and that
funding for this new activity area is additional to the existing USD 1 million cap per country per year
under the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme (see decision B.13/27).
Aug 2016 B.13/32 Revised indicative list of activities eligible for

RPSP
The Board adopted a revised indicative list of activities that the Readiness Programme can support,
including:
• Establishing and strengthening NDA/ Focal Points;
• Strategic frameworks, including the preparation of Country Programmes;
• Support for accreditation and accredited DAEs;
• Information-sharing, experience exchange and learning; and
• Formulation of NAPs and/or other adaptation planning processes.
The Board also decided to defer the independent evaluation of the RPSP to 2017.

Dec 2016 B.15/04 Additional funding for RPSP
The Board allocated an additional USD 50 million to the Readiness Programme.
June 2017 B.17/07 Independent evaluation of the Readiness

Programme
The Board decided to invite the Independent Evaluation Unit to prepare the Terms of Reference for
the independent evaluation of the Readiness programme.
Sept 2017 B.18/09 Additional funding for RPSP and revised

work programme for 2018
The Board approved an additional USD 50 million for the programme along with a request to the
Secretariat to present a revised work programme for 2018.
March 2018 B.19/15 RPSP initial review and revised work

programme for 2018
The Board took note of the findings of the Secretariat's initial review of the Readiness Programme
and of the immediate measures undertaken by the Secretariat to address quality issues in the
Readiness Programme as referred to in decision B.18/09. The Board requested the Secretariat to
continue implementing the measures listed in annex XVI. The Board approved an additional amount
of USD 60 million for the execution of the Readiness Programme and requested the Secretariat to
submit to the Board a proposal for improving the Readiness Programme based on its initial review
and the independent evaluation of the Readiness Programme.
Annex XVI of B.19/43 contains a list of the measures being implemented by the Secretariat to improve
the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme.
March 2019 B.22/10 RPSP Report by the Independent Evaluation

Unit
The Board noted the findings and recommendations presented in the report by the Independent
Evaluation Unit. It further welcomed the fact that the Secretariat incorporated recommendations from
the evaluation report by the Independent Evaluation Unit into its revised strategy and workplan, as
noted in GCF/B.22/08.
March 2019 B.22/11 Revised Readiness work programme
The Board adopted the objectives and outcomes for a revised Readiness Programme, which is based
on the outcome of the Secretariat's initial review and on the independent evaluation of the Readiness
Programme.
Annex IV lists the objectives and outcomes of the RPSP Strategy 2019–2021, which include support
for:
• Capacity-building;
• Strategic frameworks;
• National Adaptation Plans and Adaptation Planning Processes;
• Pipeline development; and
• Knowledge sharing and learning.
The Board decided that the Secretariat may accept multiple-year Readiness requests, allocating up
to USD 3 million for three years, while committing no more than USD 1 million per country per year,
which is in addition to the national adaptation plans and/or other adaptation planning processes.

Aug 2020 B.26/05 RPSP work programme and budget 2020–

2021
The Board adopted the RPSP work programme for 2020–2021 and noted the associated budget. It
approved an additional amount of USD 162.39 million for the RPSP and requested the Secretariat to
ensure full compliance with Board-approved integrity policies, standards, and decisions.
Annex VI contains the RPSP work programme for 2020–2021.
July 2021 B. 29/01 New integrated results management

framework and additional funding
The Board approved a new Integrated Results Management Framework, whose indicators and
approach replace the Initial Results Management Framework (see decision B.07/04) and mitigation
and adaptation performance measurement frameworks (see decision B.08/07).
The Board decided to allocate up to USD 12.4 million under the RPSP as new dedicated funds for
Direct Access Entities to support the implementation of the Integrated Results Management
Framework. It was decided that such Readiness commitments are not part of the existing USD 1
million cap per country per year under the RPSP and are thus not subject to clearance by National
Designated Authorities.
Annex I of B.29/14 contains the integrated results management framework.
July 2022 B.33/04 RPSP work programme and budget 2022–

2023
The Board adopted the RPSP work programme for 2022–2023 and noted the associated budget. It
approved an additional amount of USD 166.94 million for the RPSP.
The Board requested the Secretariat to undertake consultations and present a revised RPSP strategy
for Board consideration in response to countries' priorities and needs.
Annex I of B.33/19 contains the work programme for 2022–2023.

Readinessguidebook Version1 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readinessguidebook Version1 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Readiness and Preparatory

Support Programme Guidebook

Version 1 – March 2023

ii GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Change control table

Change # Details of the modification Section, Page Date

1 Project Development Technical Assistance Table 2 under 17 April 2023

2 The implementation timeline is no longer Table 14 under 25 April 2023

GREEN CLIMATE FUND iii

iv GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Annex 2. Leveraging GCF Readiness support to develop a climate-aligned financial

GREEN CLIMATE FUND v

vi GREEN CLIMATE FUND

GREEN CLIMATE FUND vii

The GCF and context of the Readiness Programme

Recent changes within GCF and to the Readiness Programme

viii GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Roll-out of Readiness Results Management Framework (RRMF): The Secretariat has

Climate finance, country needs and the Readiness Programme

Readiness grant cycle

How to use this Guidebook and Templates

GREEN CLIMATE FUND ix

x GREEN CLIMATE FUND

List of commonly used acronyms

GREEN CLIMATE FUND xi

Glossary of key terms

xii GREEN CLIMATE FUND

GREEN CLIMATE FUND xiii

xiv GREEN CLIMATE FUND

GREEN CLIMATE FUND xv

Part I. The Green Climate Fund

GREEN CLIMATE FUND 1

GCF business model

GCF Strategic Plan

2 GREEN CLIMATE FUND

3) Catalysing private sector finance at scale

GREEN CLIMATE FUND 3

The 2020-2023 GCF strategic programming aims at strengthening engagement of the

GCF themes and result areas

4 GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Environmental and social considerations

Policy on Prohibited Practices

In addition, the Policy on Prohibited Practices is to be considered for GCF-funded activities to

Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism policy

GREEN CLIMATE FUND 5

6 GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Part II. Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme

Readiness Programme strategy and objectives

2 These figures refer to GCF readiness grants approved by October 2022.

GREEN CLIMATE FUND 7

Table 1. Objectives and outcomes of the Readiness Programme

Outcome 2.3 Entity Work Programmes of accredited direct access

Outcome 2.4 Strategies for transforming and attracting private sector

8 GREEN CLIMATE FUND

rationale and active stakeholder

Outcome 4.4 An increase in the number of quality funding proposals

Outcome 4.5 An increase in the proportion of PPF requests and

Climate finance, country needs and the Readiness Programme

GREEN CLIMATE FUND 9

Programming support is needed at a variety of critical intervention points: accessing

10 GREEN CLIMATE FUND

Climate investment planning framework

Figure 2: Climate investment planning framework