Climate Finance Decision Making Tools


Between the 8th and the 10th of October, 2018, the GCF Readines Programme convened experienced practitioners (national coordinators and/or technical experts), and Readiness delivery partners.  The purpose of the workshop was to reinforce the iterative knowledge management process of implementing GCF readiness activities in countries with different socio-economic, political, geographic, and climatic contexts. Readiness support globally is reaching maturity and it was therefore timely to take stock of results and challenges to-date and feed these into new approaches for accessing GCF funds. The workshop served to take stock of the key lessons and challenges learned during the implementation of GCF Readiness initiatives in different countries. Participants presented how the support was applied, which tools were used, and the results and lessons over the course of interactive sessions.
Climate Finance Decision Making Tools:
Climate Finance Decision Making Tools in the Philippines - Theresa Espino-Yap, GCF Readiness National Coordinator in the Philippines - Download the presentation here.
Ms. Espino-Yap presented the Philippines’ experience with climate finance tools. In the Philippines there is no Climate Change Strategy yet, which would provide a more precise guidance for monitoring climate finance, but there are other frameworks and polices such as National Climate Change Action Plan. The Philippines tracks climate change expenditures with the Climate Public Expenditures and Institutional Review System (CPEIR). Furthermore, the process of prioritization has greatly improved thanks to the NDC.

The following lessons can be drawn from the Philippines:

  • It is critical to have a lead climate finance institution 
  • Country programmes are critical to guide the climate finance efforts
  • Direct access accreditation is important in terms of country empowerment, but should understand and support country’s priorities and NDCs.
  • Stakeholders engagement and agreement is key 



Climate Finance Decision Making Tools in Colombia - Javier Sabogal, GCF Readiness National Coordinator in Colombia - Download the presentation here.

Mr. Sabogal spoke about the MRV system implemented by the government of Colombia as part of the GCF Readiness Programme.  The analysis done was directed to measure the amount required to finance climate change in the country, the amount of current investment in climate change and the finance gap. Once the finance gap was determined, the next step was to find financing instruments to close this gap. 

The MRV was designed to track public, private and international climate flows and help determine the climate finance gap.

Some lessons learned from MRV design and utilization are:

  • It is difficult to define an expenditure as ‘climate change expenditure’
  • MRV is not one time project, but it is living system for collecting and updating climate finance data to support decision-making
  • The MRV design must be in line with NDCs
  • Decentralized governments should be fully engaged in the design of the system and users should be properly trained. 
  • Obtaining private climate finance data is very difficult. 


Climate Finance Decision Making Tools in Uzbekistan - Ulugbek Dedabaev, GCF Readiness National Coordinator in Uzbekistan - Download the presentation here.

Mr. Dedabaev discussed Uzbekistan’s implementation of the Investment and Financial Flows (I&FF) Assessment. Uzbekistan has recognized the effect of climate change in its rising temperatures as well as the country’s need to monitor climate change and climate finance in order to achieve its NDCs and its Paris Agreement commitments. The I&FF presented a tool to identify and assess financial needs for mitigation and adaptation that no one single strategy or programme could define. Energy, agriculture and social sectors were selected for the assessment. 

The main lessons from conducting these assessments are:

  • The process of conducting the assessment strengthened institutional capacities in the country
  • Lack of data limited the scope of the assessment 
  • The assessment can be effectively used for project prioritization.