Value of the RPSP
Synopsis & commentary:
This report presents the findings of the Independent Evaluation on the GCF’s accreditation function. It examines the effectiveness of the accreditation function in supporting the objectives of the GCF’s Initial Strategic Plan, and whether the accreditation function is fit-for-purpose for GCF’s next strategic period. The report is broken down into 10 chapters and of particular relevance to the readiness program are chapters 2 (context for governance of the accreditation function in the GCF), 4 (assessments on benchmarking with other international agencies), 5 (accreditation process), and 7 (relationship between accreditation and country ownership).
The accreditation function follows the stipulation in paragraph 45 of the GCF’s Governing Instrument that “Access to Fund resources will be through national, regional and international implementing entities accredited by the Board” and in paragraph 49 that “The Board will develop, manage and oversee an accreditation process for all implementing entities based on specific accreditation criteria that reflect the Fund’s fiduciary principles and standards and environmental and social safeguards.” Guidelines based on decisions B.08/02 and B.08/06 state that “the accreditation process will take into account the scale of funding that the entity intends to access, its track record in undertaking climate-related projects and activities, as well as the nature of its intended activities.” The accreditation process follows a three-stage standard process and aims to be completed within six months after the submission of all required documentation.
Value of the RPSP
- There is no direct comparator among the multilateral climate organizations to the scale and scope of accreditation currently practised in the GCF. Only the GCF and the AF provide readiness support for the preparation of DAEs’ accreditation applications. The RPSP of the GCF can provide, among other things, capacity-building support for nominated or accredited DAEs. - DAEs are perceived to be strongly correlated with greater country ownership (access to resources, capacity-building, reduced AE fee, understanding the local policy and context), but DAEs do not directly translate into access to the GCF or high country ownership.
Accreditation support for direct access to climate finance is one of the key outcomes in the RPSP. Outcome 1.2 in the Readiness Results Management Framework intends to support and monitor progress and results of direct access applicants and accredited entities (DAEs) whether they have established capacity to meet and maintain the GCF’s accreditation standards; and accredited DAEs have the capacity to develop a pipeline of projects and effectively implement GCF-funded activities. As of 31 Dec 2021, the GCF RPSP has supported 56 candidate entities’ nomination for direct access as a result of a prioritization process with a nomination letter, of which, 16% of the nominated direct access entities (DAEs) are from an LDC and 32% are from a SIDS. 51 nominated DAEs have been supported to identify and close gaps for accreditation. 15 DAE applicants were supported with Readiness to strengthen institutional capacities in alignment with GCF accreditation standards. 11 of accredited DAEs have been supported to strengthen institutional capacities to effectively implement GCF funded activities, and they are evenly distributed across regions according to the RPSP Annual Report 2021, annex III, GCF/B.33/07.