You have a project or a draft and need to know whether it can be written yet.
Proposals fail on evidence and structure long before anyone reads the prose. This establishes what is missing while it can still be fixed.
Read the service →
Climate finance · Project preparation
The document is not what gets assessed. The evidence behind it is.
Independent advisory for institutions and project sponsors preparing climate adaptation, water-security and transition investments. We establish the evidence, financing fit and project logic before building the funding document around them.
Climate finance · Adaptation · Water · Industrial transition · Europe & Asia-Pacific
Who the practice is for
Fit
Project preparation before proposal writing.
Project preparation before proposal writing.
Climate projects are rarely weakened by writing alone. They are weakened earlier — by gaps in evidence, climate rationale, institutional fit, project logic and financing structure. The practice works with institutions and project sponsors that:
- have a project concept and need to test fund fit
- have a draft proposal with unresolved weaknesses
- need a defensible climate rationale
- need to convert technical evidence into an investable project structure
- need to map financing instruments before committing to a submission route
Readiness Review
Entry service
The most common way to start.
Before rewriting the proposal, test whether the project is ready to be written.
A structured diagnostic against the published criteria of the relevant financing mechanism, delivered in 3–5 days.
The review examines
- Fund and instrument fit against the published criteria
- Climate rationale and the quality of the evidence behind it
- Problem definition and whether it separates climate from development
- Theory of change and results logic
- Institutional ownership and implementing arrangements
- Financing assumptions and co-financing exposure
- The issues most likely to stop the submission
You receive
- A criterion-by-criterion review
- Gaps ranked by how likely each is to block review
- Specific evidence requests, not general advice
- Major blockers stated plainly
- Recommended corrective actions
- A proposed route to submission
Services
Four services, in the order they are usually needed.
You know the mechanism and need the project built to its requirements.
A concept note written as advocacy and fitted with evidence afterwards reads as a strong story on a thin base. Reviewers recognise the shape immediately.
Read the service →The project logic holds but the climate evidence does not yet carry it.
The climate rationale is where most concept notes are thinnest and the hardest section to repair after the fact.
Read the service →The project exists but the financing route does not.
Committing to a submission route before testing fit is expensive. Windows differ on access type, ceiling, risk category and what must exist beforehand.
Read the service →Method
A sequence, not a writing service.
Establish what can be evidenced, then write only what the evidence carries.
01
Diagnose
Test fund fit, institutional readiness, evidence gaps and the issues most likely to stop a submission.
02
Evidence
Establish climate rationale, baseline, vulnerability, data quality and the supporting documentation behind each claim.
03
Structure
Build project logic, theory of change, components, results and the implementation architecture.
04
Finance
Connect activities, budget, financing structure, instrument and the requirements of the target mechanism.
05
Submit
Convert the agreed architecture into the concept note, proposal or supporting package the mechanism requires.
What gets scored
Reviewers work from published criteria. So should the document.
Six questions every proposal is answered against.
The major climate funds publish what they assess. These are the dimensions the Green Climate Fund scores against; other funds test the same ground in different words. A proposal that cannot answer all six is not short of polish. It is short of preparation.
Impact potentialWhat the project changes, in units someone else can verify.
Paradigm shiftWhether anything continues after the money stops.
Sustainable developmentBenefits beyond the climate result itself.
Needs of the recipientWhy this population, this place, this urgency.
Country ownershipWhether government is behind it, evidenced rather than asserted.
Efficiency and effectivenessWhat the result costs, against the alternatives.
Experience behind the practice
Disciplines
Law, environmental management, policy and project preparation.
A European base with an Asia-Pacific policy perspective.
Climate Readiness Advisory was founded by Alexandre Germouty, whose work combines international environmental policy, climate adaptation, water, legal analysis and project preparation across European and Asia-Pacific contexts.
International environmental policy
Climate adaptation
Water and cryosphere
Climate finance
Asia-Pacific policy
International trade and green transition
Multilateral processes
Project preparation
Institutional affiliations and previous professional experience are provided for biographical context only and do not imply endorsement of Climate Readiness Advisory. Published research is available under Insights.
