Climate Finance Access and Proposal Development Training Course

Participants can determine suitable GCF access routes and proposal entry points.

• GCF country programmes, entity work programmes and project pipelines
• Accredited Entity, National Designated Authority and executing entity responsibilities
• Direct access and international access routes assessed for applicants
• GCF Investment Framework criteria applied to preliminary project concepts
• Simplified Approval Process eligibility screened against GCF requirements
• No-objection procedure planned with national counterpart responsibilities

Participants can position adaptation projects against Adaptation Fund policies and procedures.

• Adaptation Fund strategic priorities and country-driven programming requirements
• National Implementing Entity and Multilateral Implementing Entity access options
• Adaptation Fund project cycle from concept to Board approval
• Concrete adaptation benefits distinguished from general development outcomes
• Project formulation grant resources and readiness support identified
• Adaptation Fund results framework linked to project-level indicators

Participants can assess project readiness and prioritise concepts for development.

• Readiness assessment covering sponsorship, data, partners, finance and safeguards
• Project pipeline scoring matrix built from funder selection criteria
• Problem statements separated from proposed activities and preferred technologies
• Stakeholder mapping identifies decision rights, incentives and delivery dependencies
• Early-stage assumptions documented through an evidence and data-gap register
• Concept maturation plan assigns studies, owners, costs and approval gates

Participants can write a defensible climate rationale based on credible evidence.

• Climate rationale connects observed trends, projected hazards and project impacts
• Hazard, exposure and vulnerability assessment structured using IPCC concepts
• Climate data sources evaluated for scale, credibility and decision relevance
• Baseline conditions quantified without attributing all development risks to climate
• Adaptation additionality demonstrated against a business-as-usual scenario
• Mitigation baselines distinguish project emissions from counterfactual emissions

Participants can construct a theory of change that links interventions to climate outcomes.

• Theory of Change maps causal pathways, assumptions and external influences
• Problem tree analysis converts root causes into intervention pathways
• Outputs, outcomes and impacts distinguished using results-based management definitions
• Assumptions tested for plausibility, evidence strength and management control
• Climate adaptation pathways connect assets, services and vulnerability reduction
• Mitigation pathways connect activities, emissions sources and quantified reductions

Participants can build a measurable logical framework aligned with funder requirements.

• Logical framework hierarchy aligned with the approved Theory of Change
• SMART indicators specify definitions, baselines, targets and disaggregation
• GCF core indicators selected for mitigation and adaptation investments
• Means of verification tested for cost, frequency and data ownership
• Indicator reference sheets define calculation methods and quality controls
• Results framework responsibilities assigned across implementing and executing partners

Participants can draft a concise concept note that meets funder screening needs.

• Concept note structure follows funder templates and decision-maker information needs
• Executive summaries state climate problem, investment case and funding request
• Project components organised around coherent outputs and implementation packages
• Beneficiary definitions distinguish direct beneficiaries from indirect beneficiaries
• Preliminary costing links component scope, unit costs and contingencies
• Concept note review uses a red-amber-green quality assurance checklist

Participants can structure financing plans that explain the role of climate finance.

• Financing plans separate grant, debt, equity and in-kind contributions
• Concessionality rationale identifies barriers preventing commercial finance alone
• Co-financing commitments assessed for credibility, timing and conditions
• Blended finance structures allocate risks among public and private parties
• Financial additionality explains why climate funding changes investment decisions
• Sources-and-uses table reconciles total project cost and financing

Participants can prepare transparent budgets and assess value for money.

• Activity-based budgeting links work packages, resources and implementation schedules
• Cost categories distinguish capital expenditure, operating expenditure and management costs
• Unit-cost estimates supported by quotations, benchmarks and engineering assumptions
• Contingency provisions justified through technical, market and delivery risks
• Value-for-money analysis considers economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity
• Budget narrative explains major cost drivers and allocation methodologies

Participants can prepare proportionate economic evidence for climate investment decisions.

• Economic appraisal defines costs, benefits, discount rates and appraisal periods
• Cost-benefit analysis estimates avoided losses, service gains and co-benefits
• Cost-effectiveness analysis compares alternative pathways against common outcomes
• Sensitivity analysis tests assumptions for climate hazards, costs and uptake
• Non-market benefits documented using credible valuation and proxy approaches
• Investment case narrative joins economic evidence with strategic priorities

Participants can identify safeguards risks and specify proportionate management measures.

• GCF Environmental and Social Policy screening applied to project activities
• Environmental and social risk categories linked to due diligence requirements
• Mitigation hierarchy applies avoidance, minimisation, restoration and compensation
• Stakeholder engagement plans identify affected groups and consultation methods
• Grievance redress mechanisms define access channels, timelines and accountability
• Safeguards action plans assign measures, budgets and monitoring indicators

Participants can integrate gender and inclusion requirements into project design and results.

• Gender analysis examines roles, access, control and decision-making power
• GCF Gender Policy requirements translated into proposal design actions
• Sex-disaggregated data identifies unequal climate risks and project barriers
• Gender action plans specify activities, indicators, budgets and responsibilities
• Social inclusion addresses disability, age, ethnicity and marginalised groups
• Do-no-harm screening identifies potential exclusion and protection risks

Participants can prepare project risk and fiduciary arrangements for funder review.

• Risk register captures strategic, financial, operational and contextual risks
• Likelihood-impact scoring prioritises treatment actions and escalation thresholds
• Risk owners define controls, residual exposure and reporting frequency
• Fiduciary standards cover financial management, procurement and anti-fraud controls
• Funds-flow diagrams trace disbursement, approval and reconciliation processes
• Implementation arrangements clarify accountability between entities and contractors

Participants can translate project components into credible delivery and procurement plans.

• Work breakdown structures convert outputs into manageable delivery packages
• Procurement plans identify methods, timelines, thresholds and responsible parties
• Critical path analysis identifies approvals and dependencies affecting delivery
• Implementation schedules align procurement, construction, training and monitoring activities
• Partner capacity assessments identify delivery gaps and support needs
• Operations and maintenance provisions protect project benefits after completion

Participants can design monitoring and reporting arrangements for funded climate projects.

• Monitoring plans connect indicators, data sources, frequency and reporting owners
• Data quality assurance addresses validity, completeness, timeliness and traceability
• Baseline surveys planned before implementation changes measured conditions
• GCF annual performance reporting requirements incorporated into project systems
• Verification protocols define evidence, sampling and independent review procedures
• Adaptive management uses monitoring findings to revise delivery decisions

Participants can assess whether carbon finance can support a project’s funding strategy.

• Compliance and voluntary carbon markets compared for project developers
• Article 6 cooperative approaches examined for authorisation and corresponding adjustments
• Carbon project screening tests additionality, permanence, leakage and measurability
• Crediting methodologies determine eligible activities, baselines and monitoring requirements
• Carbon revenue projections treated as uncertain supplementary project income
• Integrity risks assessed through claims, double counting and benefit-sharing analysis

Participants can manage a disciplined proposal-writing and internal review process.

• Proposal development plan assigns authors, reviewers, deadlines and dependencies
• Compliance matrix tracks template requirements, annexes and supporting evidence
• Technical writing uses claims, evidence, implications and concise signposting
• Reviewer questions anticipated through investment-committee style challenge sessions
• Version control prevents conflicting edits and undocumented scope changes
• Submission checklist confirms approvals, no-objection letters and signed commitments

Participants can build, review and present a complete climate finance proposal package for a selected funder.

• Funder selection justified against project eligibility, scale and access route
• Climate rationale, Theory of Change and results framework integrated
• Financing plan and budget reconciled with component-level implementation costs
• Safeguards, gender and risk measures incorporated into core design
• Peer review applies funder criteria, compliance checks and challenge questions
• Proposal presentation defends investment case, readiness and next-step actions