The routing decision comes first.
An accredited entity has three instruments available, and they answer different questions. One finances the work of preparing a proposal. The other two finance implementation, and differ on ceiling and on risk category rather than on subject matter.
Choosing wrongly is expensive. An activity routed to the simplified process that turns out to carry more than minimal environmental and social risk does not get downgraded — it gets rebuilt against a different template with different word limits and a fuller annex set.
| Mechanism | What it finances | Ceiling | Who decides |
|---|---|---|---|
| Project Preparation Facility (PPF) | Preparation only — studies, assessments, design and structuring that become part of the proposal package. Never implementation. | USD 1.5 million per request; simplified form at USD 300,000 or below | GCF Secretariat. No Board decision required |
| Simplified approval process (SAP) | Implementation of activities assessed as carrying minimal environmental and social risk. Typically scaling something already proven. | USD 25 million of GCF funding | GCF Board |
| Proposal approval process (PAP) | Implementation of any activity of any size or risk category within the entity’s accredited scope. | None from the route itself; bounded by the accreditation size category | GCF Board |
-
01
The second SAP condition
The USD 25 million ceiling is the condition everyone remembers. The one that disqualifies is the other: the activity must screen as category C or intermediation 3. This is cumulative, not alternative, and it is the more common reason an otherwise eligible activity cannot use the simplified route.
-
02
Guidance that no longer resolves
The 2022 and 2023 guidance were written against earlier template generations, so their section and annex references no longer map onto template v.4.0. The guidance remains the fullest statement of what a reviewer looks for, but its numbering is a dead end. Working from it without a concordance produces a proposal filed against sections that do not exist.
-
03
The investment criteria have no section
The earlier simplified template had a dedicated section with one subsection per investment criterion. Template v.4.0 does not. The evidence is distributed across C.1, C.3, C.8, D.1, D.2, E.3, E.4 and annex 11. A proposal written as though the old section still exists leaves each criterion partially answered in several places and fully answered in none.
-
04
Preparation is time-bound
A funding proposal supported by a preparation request must be submitted within two years of approval, so the maximum duration of a request is 24 months. Preparation that drifts does not simply cost more — it can expire.
What an engagement covers.
- Routing: which of the three mechanisms an activity actually qualifies for, and what each would require before submission.
- Preparation applications, including the simplified form where the request sits at or below USD 300,000.
- Funding proposals against template v.4.0, section by section, with the investment-criteria evidence placed where the current template expects it rather than where the old guidance describes it.
- The annex package, and which of the seventeen annexes apply to the chosen route.
- Results framework and indicator selection, and the concordance between handbook naming and current template naming.
The open reference
The practice maintains a free interactive reference to the GCF mechanisms, built for project officers who have to prepare the paperwork: eight modules covering the mechanisms and the boundary between them, the preparation application field by field, template v.4.0 section by section, the results framework, financing and concessionality, the risk matrix, the seventeen annexes, and the source register.
Open the GCF reference →Unofficial. This practice is not produced, endorsed or reviewed by the Green Climate Fund, and nothing here substitutes for the primary documents. Where this page and a GCF document disagree, the GCF document governs. Figures move; verify every one against the instrument in force before relying on it in a submission.
