(SAP) Marion Denantes Senior consultant Simplified Approval - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

GCF insight #11 GCF Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Marion Denantes Senior consultant

Simplified Approval Process (SAP) P2 ▪ SAP approved by the GCF in 2017 as a recognition of the need for - ‘Fast preparation, review, approval and disbursement procedures.’ (Especially for Direct Access Entities) ▪ Projects requirements ▪ 6 approved from the GCF to date

E Co. study on Simplified Approval Process P3 ▪ Aim: to explore the experiences, lessons learned, challenges and recommendations from stakeholders ▪ Methodology: ▫ Online survey with 142 respondents - conducted in February 2019 ▫ Interviews with the GCF SAP team and Accredited Entities that have a SAP-approved project

Survey overview P4 ▪ 74% of respondents are “somewhat to very familiar” with SAP ▪ 58% have been involved in the preparation of a SAP project ▪ 142 respondents: ▫ NDAs – 26% ▫ International Accredited Entities - 14% ▫ Direct Access Entities – 14% ▫ Entities wishing to be accredited - 11% ▫ NGOs, public institutions and consulting firms – 35%

SAP knowledge building P5 ▪ The SAP team carried out several outreach activities in 2018 ▪ Surveys respondents said the 3 most important sources of information on the SAP: ▫ GCF SAP website (61) ▫ GCF manual for the preparation of SAP proposals (37) ▫ GCF SAP webinars (26)

SAP knowledge building P6 ▪ Respondents were asked to rate their capacity to develop a SAP proposal: ▫ Almost half consider they have good to very good capacity ▫ Those with lower capacity indicated that training internal staff or hiring consultants would help close this knowledge gap

Why choose SAP? P7 ▪ The most common response - simpler application process, requiring fewer supporting documents ▪ Several respondents also emphasised that the SAP is also well adapted to small entities

How simplified is the Simplified Approval Process? P8 1. Preparation stage ▫ Overall, a majority of respondents found the SAP application process easier (45%), 27% remain neutral, 10% not knowing, and 17% felt it requires the same amount of effort as the standard process ▫ Estimated level of effort for SAP Concept Notes averaged 4.8 person-months and 5.3 for the SAP Full Proposals (21 to 34 person-months under the standard process) ▫ SAP requires less time, but it is unclear whether this comes from the smaller, category C project characterisation or from the SAP simplifications

How simplified is the Simplified Approval Process? P9 2. Review stage ▫ Discrepancies exist between what is expected from entities in the SAP template, and what is expected during the Review stage ▫ Entities believe the Secretariat and ITAP seem to assess projects by adopting the same, rather than a simpler approach, for SAP as for the standard process ▫ Average response time from the Secretariat is 4.2 weeks for Concept Notes and 10 weeks for Funding Proposals ▫ According to the SAP team the current average response time is around 4 weeks for the Concept Notes and around 7 weeks for Funding Proposals with an improving trend

How simplified is the Simplified Approval Process? P10 3. Approval stage ▫ As is the case for the standard process, timing for the SAP approval is also linked to the GCF Board meetings. The GCF Board is considering a new policy whereby SAP Funding Proposals could be approved all year round, significantly reducing intervals between submission and approval. 4. Disbursement stage ▫ The SAP team is now focusing more attention on the Disbursement stage given most proposals were approved recently. For the SAP team this means learning lessons and identifying what is needed to optimise and streamline post- approval.

Challenges and recommendations P11 Challenges Recommendations ▪ ▪ Many of the same issues that would More training/webinars for Accredited occur under the standard process Entities and NDAs; availability of a GCF SAP key contact; accessible information ▪ Mixed messages between the SAP on successful applications; to speed up template word limit and information the Review stage required to meet the guidelines ▪ SAP needs to be further simplified, ▪ Inability to accurately contextualise the especially as the types of projects are project, due to word limits, resulted in lower risk in general multiple follow-up questions of clarity from the GCF at the Review stage

Conclusions P12 ▪ The SAP is an important value proposition for the GCF ▪ There was an overall positive impression from respondents ▪ There is only limited consensus on whether the SAP is genuinely more simple or not, although quantitative data suggests level of effort is reduced compared to the standard process ▪ There is a need to align GCF Secretariat/ITAP expectations with the SAP project assessment