Evaluation of the International Climate Finance Program

1. Introduction

Climate finance refers to local, national, or transnational financing that seeks to support mitigation and adaptation actions that address climate change in developing countries. Climate financing supports mitigation and the large-scale investments which are required to significantly reduce emissions. Climate financing is equally important for adaptation, as significant financial resources are needed to adapt to the adverse effects and reduce the impacts of a changing climate.

1.1. Overview of the International Climate Finance program

Canada’s International Climate Finance (ICF) program was established in 2010. Its mandate was to provide $1.2 billion over three years to developing countries. Since then, Canada has committed an additional $2.65 billion for the 2015 to 2021 period in 2015, and another $5.3 billion, in 2021, for the 2021 to 2026 period. 

Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Paris Agreement have agreed that financial resources should be scaled up and directed towards achieving a balance between adaptation and mitigation. 

Canada’s first and second ICF commitments have been delivered in full and delivery of the third is underway, as illustrated by Figure 1.

Figure 1. Timeline of the three international climate finance commitments

The current approach to providing $5.3 billion in ICF is focused on four main thematic areas: clean energy transition and coal phase-out, climate-smart agriculture and food systems, nature-based solutions and biodiversity, and climate governance. It also includes the following changes from the second commitment to bring Canada’s ICF more in line with developing countries’ needs and global best practices: 

• A larger proportion of grants. Increasing the proportion of funding delivered by grants instead of loans from 30 percent to 40 percent, to improve access to climate finance.
• More finance for adaptation. Increasing the provision of funding towards adaptation from 20 percent to a minimum of 40 percent, to help developing countries build resilience to climate change impacts. 
• Addressing biodiversity loss alongside climate change. Allocating a minimum of 20 percent of the commitment to projects that leverage nature-based climate solutions and result in biodiversity co-benefits.
• Alignment with Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy. Ensuring that 80 percent of the third commitment goes to projects that integrate gender equality considerations to support the poorest and most vulnerable.

For more information, please consult the following links:

• Climate finance announcements
• Canada's climate finance Initiatives and Programs (list of funded projects)
• Canada's climate finance distribution channels

1.2. Environment and Climate Change Canada’s role

Canada’s ICF program is jointly administered and delivered by Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC). ECCC leads climate finance negotiations under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement, where collective climate finance goals are agreed to. ECCC is also the lead department for tracking and reporting on climate finance internationally, including to fulfill transparency requirements under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. GAC is the lead department for implementing nearly all the $5.3 billion commitment, with $181 million (or 3 percent of the commitment) being implemented by ECCC. The departments allocate funding in support of four thematic areas and toward three additional performance targets, identified in Canada’s ICF policy framework and illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Canada’s international climate finance targets and thematic areas

Source: Canada's international climate finance - Canada.ca

ECCC and GAC collect results data according to the indicators for their respective projects. They work jointly in aggregating numbers and in fulfilling each department’s reporting obligations1. ECCC and GAC use a joint performance measurement framework.

ECCC’s $181 million share of Canada’s third ICF commitment includes the $160 million originally allocated to the department and $21 million of GAC’s share transferred to ECCC for administration. As of February 2025, funding had been allocated to 34 projects. Figure 3 presents the funding distribution of ECCC’s ICF projects across regions, thematic areas, approaches to address climate change, transfer payment instruments, and programming type. In addition to transfer payment funding, ECCC was provided with $14.8 million for salary, benefits, and other operating costs, over five years starting in 2021 to 2022.

Figure 3. Funding distribution of ECCC’s climate finance projects

Source: Data was provided by ECCC’s ICF program administrators and reflects planned spending as of March 2025.

Note: Due to rounding, percentages may not add to 100 percent.

Figure 4 in Annex 1 lists the multilateral and bilateral funding recipients and maps the type of transfer payments used as well as the coverage of thematic areas. Bilateral recipients include Canadian and foreign civil society organizations with programming in developing countries. Multilateral funding recipients include multilateral development banks, multilateral climate funds, and United Nations agencies and programs, as well as other intergovernmental organizations. No funding was channelled directly through foreign governments.

1.3. About this evaluation

This evaluation was undertaken by the Evaluation Division of ECCC’s Audit and Evaluation Branch. The project was conducted in compliance with the Financial Administration Act and the Treasury Board Policy on Results (2016), and in accordance with ECCC’s Audit and Evaluation Plan 2024 to 2029. The evaluation period was from April 2021 to February 2025.

ECCC and GAC have elected to conduct independent formative program evaluations to support the renewal of Canada’s ICF program beyond 2025-2026, examining departmental delivery of the program separately. Evaluation project teams have nonetheless collaborated and coordinated efforts throughout the conduct of the work. As a result, attention was paid to getting scoping right. The following are excluded from this evaluation scope: 

• Activities, outputs, and results delivered by GAC, or for which GAC has a clear lead.
• Joint responsibilities such as governance and reporting.
• Activities not under direct ECCC control, such as activities delivered by funding recipients.

The evaluation mainly focused on alignment with global best practices and developing countries’ needs; program design, delivery, and efficiency; results and performance measurement; and organizational learning. Given that program delivery is underway and performance information availability is limited, this evaluation is unable to fully report on the results of ECCC’s allocation of $181 million of Canada’s third ICF commitment. 

The following methods were used in completing this evaluation:

• File review including work plans, reports, research papers, news releases, backgrounders, written input from external partners, and evaluation reports on climate finance programs run by other developed countries (approximately 400).
• Analysis of program administration and financial data (approximately 3,969 data points).
• Interviews with ECCC program administrators and Government of Canada officials (29), as well as implementing partners (10).
• A case study focusing on results achieved through bilateral programming.
• A literature review focused on developing country needs for climate finance and global best practices in delivering climate finance programming. Generative artificial intelligence was used to support the literature review, with steps taken to ensure the generated content was accurate.

1.3.1. Limitations

As a result of being conducted halfway through commitment delivery and with a scope limited to ECCC’s activities and results, this evaluation has the following limitations:

• It does not report on some joint elements of Canada’s ICF program, such as overall results to date, progress on targets, and governance effectiveness.
• It reports briefly on two key areas of climate finance, namely the mobilization of private finance and results related to financing of adaptation projects2, which are delivered chiefly by GAC.
• It does not report on the priority thematic area of Climate-Smart Agriculture and Food Systems, as ECCC did not receive funding allocated to this area. 

2. Relevance and alignment

Relevance and alignment of a government program refer to how well the program's objectives and activities match the organization’s mandate, international commitments, and the needs and priorities of its stakeholders. They also refer to how effectively a program supports the broader strategic priorities of the government, including government-wide policies. Confirmation of relevance and alignment indicates strategic resource utilization, supports public trust, and demonstrates public service accountability in delivery of the elected government’s agenda.

This section reports on ECCC’s contribution to the ICF program, and the alignment of ECCC’s design and delivery of the program with the needs of developing countries and with global evidence of best practices in climate finance programming.

The evaluation found that ECCC plays an important role in Canada's ICF program by utilizing its expertise to align Canada’s climate finance with international commitments and with developing countries’ needs. ECCC’s mandate and Canada's international commitments under the UNFCCC are aligned. Funded projects by ECCC support country ownership, build climate governance capacity, and address priority sectors, with most projects meeting multiple needs.

Additionally, ECCC’s use of innovative and flexible approaches, such as leveraging established relationships and pilot initiatives, aligns well with global best practices. However, there are areas for improvement in gender integration and the timeliness of agreement signature and fund disbursement.

 2.1. ECCC’s contribution to the ICF program

Key findings: ECCC makes an important contribution to Canada’s International Climate Finance (ICF) program design, delivery, and governance. In doing so, the department brings to bear knowledge, expertise, and experience gained from delivering on its broad climate mandate, both domestically and internationally. Joint delivery of the ICF program by ECCC and GAC continues to be an effective approach, given the departments’ complementary expertise and capacity.

The mobilization and delivery of climate finance aligns with ECCC's mandate. More specifically, climate finance aligns with the departmental core responsibility to act on clean growth and climate change and its departmental result statement on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and increasing climate resilience globally on behalf of Canada.

ECCC has played a key role in developing the current federal policy framework for climate finance. The department also ensures its coherence with Canada's climate and environmental diplomacy efforts and Canada's domestic climate plan, including recent milestones in national climate governance such as the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change, the 2030 Emissions Reduction Plan, and the National Adaptation Strategy. Since 2021, the department has also represented Canada in its role to provide, in close collaboration with Germany, further transparency on the collective delivery of climate finance by developed countries, including through the development of the Climate Finance Delivery Plan in 2021 and its Progress Report in 2022.

With respect to ICF program oversight, ECCC brings its expertise and knowledge to the project selection for the full third commitment, as part of the annual investment planning process conducted with GAC and other interested federal departments and agencies. ECCC allocates climate finance to programs and projects, in line with the priorities of the federal policy framework. 

The 2021 evaluation of the ICF highlighted six areas where additional focus was warranted to increase impact while optimizing the use of existing resources and expertise. ECCC holds considerable expertise in three of these areas, namely: carbon markets; emission monitoring, reporting and verification; and bilateral engagement partnerships. This expertise was leveraged in projects funded with ECCC’s allocation of Canada’s 2021-2026 ICF commitment, including by drawing from established networks and partnerships in these areas. Moreover, on three occasions (projects) over the evaluated period, GAC transferred part of its allocated climate funding for ECCC to administer. The additional projects involve technical and expert knowledge in carbon markets, domestic adaptation plans, and climate governance. 

According to program officials from ECCC and GAC, the current roles and responsibilities are aligned with departmental mandates, and they work well. In their view, the joint delivery of the ICF program continues to be an effective approach. ECCC’s active involvement in the delivery of Canada's ICF also provides benefits for the delivery of ECCC's broader climate mandate, such as in climate diplomacy. Experience on the ground and the establishment and maintenance of relationships support the credibility and influence of departmental representatives in international negotiations and multilateral fora.

 2.2. Alignment with developing countries’ needs

Key findings: ECCC’s design and delivery of the International Climate Finance program align with the needs of developing countries for implementing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. Funded projects support country ownership, build climate governance capacity, and address priority sectors, with most projects meeting multiple needs.

The UNFCCC Standing Committee on Finance has conducted an analysis of the needs of developing country Parties related to implementing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement. This work draws on several information sources, such as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and other reports submitted to the UNFCCC, national responses to a call for evidence, reports prepared by multilateral development banks, and regional and global reports that provide information on the needs of developing countries based on models and estimates. Other developing countries’ needs are identified in the Climate Finance Delivery Plan Progress Report, which was written in consultation with developing countries on their experience as the ultimate recipients of climate finance and implementers of climate action. The key needs identified in the literature are: 

• Increased provision of climate finance.
• Support for developing institutional and technical capacities.
• Improved access to climate data and technology.
• Enhanced access to climate finance, including by reducing application and disbursement timelines.
• Targeted allocation of climate finance in sectors identified as national priorities, aligned with NDC implementation plans.
• Strengthened inclusion of women, Indigenous Peoples, and vulnerable communities.

Overall, ECCC’s design and delivery of the ICF program are well-aligned with developing countries’ needs. Leveraging departmental expertise and relationships, program administrators have selected projects which support country ownership, build climate governance capacity, and provide support in priority sectors. All 34 ICF agreements managed by ECCC meet more than one need, with most projects meeting 3 or 4 needs (21 projects or 62 percent). Table 1 provides a summary of the alignment of ECCC ICF projects with developing countries’ needs.

2.3. Alignment with global best practices

Key findings: ECCC’s delivery of the International Climate Finance (ICF) program aligns with global best practices for providers of climate finance: supporting country ownership, demonstrating responsiveness to countries’ capacity, and adopting innovative project designs as well as flexible disbursement mechanisms. However, alignment could be improved to ensure ICF allocation is inclusive and supports the most vulnerable population groups, and to ensure timely access to funding.

The Taskforce on Access to Climate Finance (Taskforce) was created in 2021 by the United Kingdom government and Fijian governments during by the United Kingdom’s presidency of the 26th UNFCCC Conference of Parties. The Taskforce was established in response to longstanding calls for reform from developing countries. It also came as a recognition that mechanisms for accessing climate finance have been slow, complex, and resource intensive. This Taskforce came up with a renewed approach to the global public climate finance architecture, with the goal of improving the predictability, flexibility, transparency, and speed of disbursement of climate finance. 

To support the delivery of this new approach, the Taskforce developed a set of Principles and Recommendations which provides best practice guidance related to climate finance access, programming, and use to both providers and ultimate recipients of climate finance. The key 5 principles for the new proposed approach are country ownership; harmonization of processes and alignment of finance; responsiveness to country needs and climate vulnerability; flexibility and innovation; and transparency and accountability. 

Overall, the evaluation found that the design and delivery of the ICF program by ECCC align with the Taskforce principles and recommendations for providers of climate finance in several areas, as evidenced by the following:

• All four bilateral projects respond to NDC priorities and country-defined needs. Projects are owned and driven by governments and the communities they intend to benefit. The projects focus on securing buy-in and participation from local leadership and talent.
• Two out of four bilateral projects focus on least developed countries and small island developing states, which are prioritized due to their lower climate governance capacity, restricted access funds through multilateral development bank programs and multilateral climate funds, and high vulnerability to climate impacts. Climate finance is used to strengthen national and sub-national capacities to identify climate action priorities and to act effectively. 
• In developing countries with lower capacity, ECCC also funded pilot initiatives to demonstrate climate change mitigation and adaptation impact potential. In conjunction with the strengthening of climate governance capacities, these interventions are designed to create an enabling environment for accessing multilateral and private climate finance. 
• One bilateral project incorporated an innovative disbursement mechanism, providing variable tranches of funding to meet the priority technical support needs identified by four national governments. Under this approach, climate finance was not equally allocated to each country but rather allocated to the best proposals brought forward by national points of contact. All projects were led by a domestic expert to support capacity building. This proved helpful not only in creating incentives for competitive proposals, but also in mitigating unforeseen delays caused by national elections and the ensuing changes in government.
• When appropriate, ECCC leveraged Canada’s membership in international bodies (e.g., the Global Methane Initiative) to identify and select projects. This practice aligns with global efforts towards harmonization of international climate finance.  
• All projects demonstrate innovative and agile approaches by using transfer payment policy flexibilities, such as up-front multi-year funding agreements and other cash management provisions. As a result, implementing partners and countries have improved visibility and predictability of climate finance flows, compared to the projects funded under Canada’s second commitment and delivered by ECCC. 
• Six projects are a continuation of or build on projects funded under the previous commitments, in certain cases with the same implementing partner or country selection. For instance, bilateral support for NDC implementation built on the lessons learned from projects conducted under Canada’s second commitment, which included support to countries of the Pacific Alliance and West Africa. This approach allows continued collaboration with existing known bilateral partners with sustained funding allocated to support an increased ambition in the next phase of the initiatives. 
• ICF’s Emerging Priorities Fund (EPF) increases the flexibility of Canada’s climate finance. This program-level disbursement mechanism has proven useful in responding to emerging opportunities on a need basis, alongside the larger portion of ECCC’s allocation which was allocated in the first year of the third commitment period. Section 3.1.1 elaborates on EPF results and some drawbacks of its current parameters.

The evaluation identified two areas where alignment with global best practices in climate finance programming could be improved. The first area is inclusivity and support for the most vulnerable population groups, especially women, girls, and Indigenous Peoples. The ICF program is aligned with Canada’s Feminist International Assistance Policy, and aims for a minimum of 80 percent of the commitment to support projects that integrate gender equality considerations. However, the evaluation found that only 18 percent of ECCC’s allocated funds were expected to support social and gender inclusion3 and that projects did not consistently track gender considerations, nor did they make the integration of gender considerations an explicit priority.

Second, global best practices call for timely disbursement of climate finance. Due to a combination of factors, ECCC faced challenges in negotiating and signing agreements in the first year of funding. Section 3.2 provides more information on this.

3. Design and delivery 

Sound design and delivery are essential to achieving results, supporting not only program-specific goals but also the government-wide priority of managing its activities in support of achieving results. This section reports on elements of ECCC’s ICF program design and delivery, including transfer payment instrument choice, the EPF, agreement negotiation and signature, as well as agreement administration and disbursement.

ECCC’s process for selecting funding recipients aligned with the ICF policy framework and leveraged existing expertise. Transfer payment instrument choice balanced administrative burden with oversight. Early recipient selection faced challenges due to insufficient capacity within the department, requiring additional resources and input from GAC. Despite these challenges, all planned funding was transferred to recipients on time as per agreed schedules. ECCC’s administration of ICF costs 2.6 percent of its allocation envelope. Options to increase efficiency could include selecting large-value projects and using grants instead of contributions where appropriate.

3.1. Selection of recipients and transfer payment instruments  

Key findings: ECCC’s process for selecting funding recipients was inclusive, aligned with the international climate finance policy framework, and leveraged existing expertise and relationships. Project-based selection of a grant or contribution instrument balanced minimizing recipients’ administrative burden with appropriate levels of oversight and influence. Increasing flexibility in instrument choice would enhance program delivery efficiency. While useful, the Emerging Priorities Fund’s efficiency and impact was constrained by design parameters.

Nearly 70 percent of ECCC’s ICF envelope was notionally allocated to specific projects and recipients before the department received expenditure authorities. Interviewees noted that notional allocation was an inclusive process based on broad consultations and was aligned with Canada’s ICF policy framework. 

Funds which were not notionally allocated to specific projects and recipients were earmarked for narrowly defined objectives, namely: targeted energy programming, bilateral support for implementation of NDC, and bilateral projects that support the Global Methane Initiative. By using directed funding instead of an application-based approach4, ECCC leveraged existing relationships and key partners in ICF delivery to identify and select prospective funding recipients.

The recipient selection process benefited from the expertise and existing relationships of several key individuals in ECCC program teams. However, some interviewees noted that this approach risks making project success dependent on individuals rather than teams. Nevertheless, compared to the alternative option of a call for applications, this approach saved time and contributed to accelerating disbursement. 

For each selected project, program administrators determined which of two transfer payment instruments was the most appropriate: a grant or a contribution5. Transfer payment instrument choice is based on several factors, such as project type and risks, value of the funding, risk profile of the recipient, and in some cases, recipient requirements6. In line with the Policy on Transfer Payments, administrative requirements for recipients, including foreign recipients7, ought to be proportionate to the risk level, with the expectation that every funding agreement is tailored to its specific risks. 

The evaluation found that ECCC’s instrument choice maintained a balance between, on the one hand, minimizing risks and administrative burden, and ensuring timely disbursement, and on the other hand ensuring accountability and performance reporting. ECCC opted for 21 contributions agreements and 13 grant agreements. Grant recipients include the UNFCCC Secretariat, United Nations bodies and programs, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the World Bank, and the International Energy Agency. Table 2 provides a summary of funded projects per transfer payment type, as well as their total and average value.

Source: Data provided by ECCC’s ICF program administrators as of February 2025. 

Contribution agreements typically require a higher degree of oversight and monitoring than grant agreements. While managing contribution agreements draws more administrative resources from the department, these agreements generally allow for ECCC to maintain a certain degree of influence on project design and implementation and generally result in greater visibility for Canada than when climate finance is funneled through grants to multilateral bodies. Interviewees also noted that the lower administrative cost of managing grant agreements allows Canada to join multilateral initiatives, which share costs and risks, and support the harmonization of international climate finance, in line with global best practices.

The evaluation found that the program would benefit from increasing instrument choice flexibility, so that the best instrument and appropriate elements may be selected once all relevant facts are known. As per the Guideline on the Directive on Transfer Payments, when dealing with foreign recipients, departmental managers do not have to apply requirements of the Directive which are not appropriate, nor do they have to seek an exemption to do this. In addition, it is worth noting that while voted authorities for grant expenditures can support the signature of contribution agreements, authorities for contribution expenditures do not enable the signature of grant agreements. 

3.1.1. The Emerging Priorities Fund

The EPF is a carve-out of the third ICF commitment that was intentionally left unallocated to create a capacity to respond to, and fund projects related to, emerging priorities in international climate change cooperation. Out of the $160 million originally allocated to ECCC, $5 million was left unallocated and set aside in the EPF. Over the evaluated period EPF funds were allocated to support Ministerial announcements at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties, the G7, and the G20. 

The evaluation found that the EPF is a useful tool, providing ECCC with flexibility to respond to emerging priorities in a context where the majority of its ICF envelope was allocated at the outset to ensure predictability of funding. However, interviewed senior officials and program administrators indicated that the following design elements were not aligned with the fund purpose and limited its performance:

• The amount of funding set aside for the EPF was spread over four fiscal years, averaging at $1.25 million per year, an amount that could limit the ability to support Ministerial announcements in several fora.
• Funding set aside for the EPF received expenditure authorities for 1-year contribution agreements. This could lead to inefficiencies and additional administrative cost to manage contribution agreements of small nominal value.
• Although the EPF was designed to provide flexibility, in practice the delivery was administratively burdensome due to tight timelines and the requirement for both ECCC and GAC Ministers to sign off on funding allocations. 

3.2. Agreement negotiation and signature

Key findings: Early recipient selection aimed to ensure timely disbursement of funds. However, challenges were faced due to insufficient capacity and expertise for drafting, negotiating, and signing agreements among program administrators and departmental enablers, causing delays. Addressing these issues required additional resources and coordination with Global Affairs Canada. Eligible expenditures were established as a basis of payment for contribution agreements. Results could also be used as a basis of payment for projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Early recipient selection was intended to put program administrators in a position to negotiate funding agreements as soon as expenditure authorities were received and to ensure a timely disbursement of funds. However, this approach faced challenges. ECCC’s ICF funding agreements are administered by personnel across three departmental branches8, with coordination support from a program secretariat in the International Affairs Branch9. Interviewees noted that not all staff had sufficient capacity for this workload, adequate knowledge of funding agreements, or project management skills to administer agreements in line with best practices and departmental guidelines. 

Similar to the 2024 internal audit of the administration of grants and contributions at ECCC, this evaluation found that the department did not have sufficient capacity and expertise to support ICF program administrators in the drafting, negotiation, and signature of funding agreements. Specifically, interviewees noted a need for clear and standardized guidelines, tools, and processes to support funding transfers to recipients. This situation created delays and impacted program administrators’ ability to make funds available to recipients in a timely manner. Paired with cash management provisions requiring a fixed proportion of funding be spent in the first fiscal year, disbursement in the fall of 2022 created challenging conditions for implementing partners and other recipients. The Management Action Plan developed in response to the 2024 internal audit includes measures to improve transfer payment administration efficiency. 

Addressing the situation required additional resources to address knowledge gaps, develop shared understanding, and secure support across branches. Coordination with GAC departmental enablers contributed to moving agreements forward in line with applicable policies and directives. Work is underway to develop new templates for funding agreements with climate finance recipients.

For contribution agreements, eligible expenditures were established as basis of payment. While this is a sound approach for funded projects which support climate governance capacity building, it may not be the most appropriate basis for projects which primarily aim to reduce GHG emissions. In this case, it may be better to allocate climate finance through results-based payments.

3.3. Agreement disbursement and administration 

Key findings: International climate finance funding agreements are managed by personnel across three branches, with International Affairs Branch’s Climate Finance Secretariat providing coordination assistance. Over the evaluated period, 74 percent of the allocated funds were disbursed, all in line with funding agreement schedules, despite capacity and skill challenges. While ECCC’s administrative costs are only 2.6 percent of allocated funding, there are potential options to improve program efficiency, such as selecting large-value projects and potentially considering opting for grant agreements instead of contributions, where consistent with risk assessment, project complexity, and access to climate finance. 

Despite the capacity, knowledge and skill challenges noted above, the evaluation found that agreement disbursement went well. At the close of the conduct phase of this evaluation, 74 percent (or $133.4 million out of $181 million) of ECCC’s full ICF allocation had been disbursed, in line with funding agreement schedules. Given that ICF funding agreements are managed by personnel across three branches, ECCC’s Climate Finance Secretariat plays an important role in ensuring consistency and diligence in the administration of agreements, which includes offering advice and assisting with securing support from departmental expert services.

3.3.1. Administration efficiency

Financial information on actual and expected expenditures indicates that ECCC’s administration of its climate finance allocation has an administrative cost of approximately 2.6 percent, or $4.7 million over 5 years to administer $181 million in transfer payments. 

On a per-project basis, the average administration cost per project10 is estimated to be $139,412 over the five-year disbursement of ECCC’s ICF allocation11. Given that the value of funded projects varies between $147,343 and $25 million, there is a large variance in the ratio of administrative cost to agreement value across climate finance projects. summarizes value and cost differences between the smallest and the largest agreements. 

Interviewed senior officials and program administrators have identified the following options for increasing program efficiency, such as:

• Selecting more large-value projects, thereby increasing average project value and decreasing average administration cost. 
• For ECCC bilateral projects, focusing project leads’ involvement to strategic decision points, leaving regular operations entirely to project implementers. 
• Signing more grants agreements instead of contribution agreements, where warranted by an assessment of recipient profile, project risk and complexity, and other factors. 

Source: Data provided by ECCC’s ICF program administrators.

Note 1 : The $2.8M discrepancy between the $181M total allocation and the total value of all projects of $178.2M is accounted for: $2.5M is allocated towards the EPF and the remaining $300K is allocated towards a climate governance project. These projects are not included in the total value calculations as their agreements have not been signed.

Note 2 : Due to rounding, percentages may differ slightly.

Cost-effectiveness also ties into broader discussions about the pros and cons of multilateral versus bilateral programming, which were highlighted during stakeholder interviews. Multilateral programming is valued for centralizing funding sources by channelling funding through multilateral entities, reducing potential duplication, and leveraging international organizations’ capacity to support project progress. However, interviewees pointed out global critiques of multilateral organizations, such as slow delivery. In comparison, interviewees highlighted that bilateral programming offers strategic advantages, such as acquiring strategic, on-the-ground intel through more hands-on project implementation, opportunities to advance Canada's international priorities, and enhanced visibility and recognition among recipients and countries. Bilateral projects also operate in specific areas where multilateral organizations are less active. Nonetheless, challenges such as resource intensiveness and the need for specific expertise among program administrators were noted. Overall, while both approaches have distinct benefits, each presents unique challenges that need careful consideration in future programming.

4. Effectiveness

Measuring the effectiveness of government programs involves regular performance monitoring, data collection, analysis, and reporting on resource use, output, results and outcome distribution. Results are assessed against indicators, timelines, and targets. When well executed, performance measurement supports evidence-based program management, accountability, resource allocation, and continuous improvement. 

This section reports on ECCC’s ICF program’s performance measurement framework and performance information, results to date, and assessed cost-effectiveness.

ECCC's ICF program uses a performance measurement framework but lacks detailed disaggregation of project-level results by identity factors and does not systematically collect performance information for capacity building projects. 

While program-level results are expected to accrue over the next few years, the evaluation found evidence of successful project-level outputs, such as the establishment of climate governance communities in West Africa. ECCC has improved the cost-effectiveness of its mitigation projects, achieving a lower cost per tonne of GHG emissions avoided or reduced compared to previous commitments. The program’s value for money is comparable to the most cost-effective projects delivered by multilateral funds and regulations administered by ECCC to reduce GHG emissions.

4.1 Performance measurement

Key findings: ECCC's International Climate Finance program uses a performance measurement framework to track outcomes and indicators, but it does not report on project-level results by population groups. The program does not systematically collect performance data for capacity building projects, which make up a significant portion of the funding. There is a recognized need for improved performance measurement and reporting on immediate and intermediate outcomes to better capture project results and to support ongoing learning.

The ICF programmed by ECCC adheres to a performance measurement framework developed jointly with GAC and approved by the Treasury Board. This framework defines immediate, intermediate, and ultimate outcomes, along with relevant indicators12. Ultimate outcome indicators remain unchanged from previous ICF commitments, allowing for continuity of reporting. The performance information collected by ECCC to report on the program-level results generated by its $181 million allocation is summarized in Table 4. 

Source: Data provided by ECCC’s ICF program administrators.

At the program level, indicators are defined and measurable, with specific baselines and targets for each indicator. The ultimate outcomes and their associated indicators are intended to help ECCC meet its mandate to report on Canada’s ICF commitment. Multilateral and bilateral recipients of ICF provide performance information to ECCC, and in turn this information is aggregated with impact metrics from GAC. Program outputs and results are reported by ECCC to internal and external stakeholders, including on ECCC’s website and, where relevant, in reporting through the UNFCCC.

Project-level qualitative information is also compiled by program administrators and made available to the public through several channels, such as ECCC’s Departmental Results Reports and Government of Canada webpages13. ECCC ICF program administrators communicate regularly with implementing partners and receive updates on project performance. However, project-level performance information recorded by program administrators shows just 5 projects reported results disaggregated by gender. No disaggregation by other identity factors was officially reported. 

4.1.1. Measuring and reporting on capacity building outcomes

As per the performance measurement framework, ECCC reports on three ultimate outcome indicators and one immediate indicator. However, these indicators do not capture the breadth and impact of outcomes of climate governance capacity building projects, which account for $113.0 million (out of $178.2 million, or 63 percent) of ECCC’s ICF commitment allocation.

While project-level performance information is collected by implementing partners for their own purposes and is available to ECCC project leads, it is not collected systematically by the ICF program as there is no reporting requirement. As a result, the evaluation identified results through interviews which were not reflected in administrative data. 

According to interviewed senior officials and program administrators, there is a need for additional performance measurement and reporting on immediate and intermediate outcomes related to capacity building, both to enable reporting of impact and to support ongoing learning. In addition, designing climate finance to yield measurable progress towards countries’ climate capabilities and climate goals is one of the principles identified by the Taskforce as a global best practice. 

A 2021 program evaluation on Danish climate finance highlights that measuring performance related to capacity building may include indicators such as institutional capacity assessments, gap analyses, individual skills assessments, and monitoring changes in capacity and skills.

4.1.2. Measuring and reporting on climate adaptation results

Currently, expected benefits from climate finance allocated to adaptation projects are reported as the number of beneficiaries. Reporting in aggregate is a sound approach to summarize the results across qualitatively different adaptation projects located in several regions across the world. However, this indicator has several limitations and is an insufficient measure of results for the following reasons:

• It does not measure adaptation effectiveness. Either in terms of reduction in vulnerability or exposure to risk, or in terms of improvement in resilience or ability to rebound from impacts.
• It does not assess expected effectiveness over time, against climate change scenarios. Expected future extreme weather impacts and sea-level rise vary across representative concentration pathways; some adaptation measures might be effective under low emission scenarios but ineffective under high emission scenarios. Impacts increase over time under all scenarios, potentially cancelling out the expected benefits of some early adaptation measures.
• It does not report on risk-based prioritization. For any given country, economic sectors, regions, and populations groups have varying levels of baseline vulnerability and resilience. Adaptation funding should target areas where maximum impact can be had by providing support to vulnerable communities. It should also account for loss and damage, as some areas are expected to bear climate impacts of such magnitude that on-site adaptation may not be the best risk response.
• It does not measure co-benefits. Adaptation measures typically have additional positive impacts on local communities.
• It does not report on distributive impacts. Adaptation measures might benefit socio-economic groups differently.

Program-level indicator limitations highlight the need for project-level indicators to assess adaptation measures’ effectiveness and co-benefits, to assess expected effectiveness over time and distributive impacts, as well as to inform risk-based decision-making. Clear expectations and indicators are needed to support both the selection and the performance measurement of climate change adaptation projects.

4.2. ECCC international climate finance results

Key findings: ECCC international climate finance disbursement and project implementation are underway, with program-level results expected to accrue over the next few years. The evaluation found evidence of project-level outputs and results, such as the establishment of climate governance communities in West Africa and successful pilot projects in various regions.

At the close of the evaluation period, ECCC’s ICF program delivery continues to unfold with less than one year remaining until expenditure authorities expire. Results are expected to accrue over this period and beyond 2026, as climate change mitigation and adaptation projects are expected to have impacts beyond the five years of Canada’s third ICF commitment. As a result, there are currently few program-level results to report, and more information is expected to become available over time. Table 5 summarizes program-level results for ECCC’s ICF commitments.

Source: Data provided by ECCC’s ICF program administrators.

Note: The table shows results for ECCC’s allocation of the second and third ICF commitments. Results shown for ECCC’s allocation of the third commitment are results from the start of the commitment through fiscal year 2023 to 2024 and recorded in October 2024. 

The evaluation found that some projects faced unforeseen circumstances such as foreign government change, COVID-19-related travel restrictions, and bureaucratic delays. Overall, none of these external factors have had negative impacts on program results, and risk mitigation strategies and reactive measures have worked well.

Despite the lack of systematic measurement and reporting on project-level capacity building results (section 4.1), the evaluation found ample evidence of outputs and results at the project level. The following points reflect the outputs and outcomes of ECCC's bilateral climate change financing projects:

• Communities of climate governance practice have been established in four West African countries (The Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, and Togo) and continue to be active, with membership ranging from 100 to 350 people. These communities strengthen institutional arrangements for climate governance and increase awareness and understanding of climate targets and policies.
• 11 transformative pilot projects have been completed and 19 are underway in West Africa. For example, one project employed satellite imagery and artificial intelligence to document a baseline and inventory, track, and assess the impact of solar power generation projects. Over time, this project evolved into a net metering project, whereby distributed solar power generation is integrated in the regional energy distribution grid, which can contribute to significantly reducing both carbon dioxide emissions and consumer bills while simultaneously enhancing power system.
• A waste sector project in small islands and developing states funded by ECCC was successful in demonstrating a proof of concept for accelerating the implementation of methane emission reduction projects in the waste sector and creating enabling conditions for a sustained expansion of organic waste management technologies. 
• In Thailand, a project to decarbonize the cement and concrete sector is off to a promising start. The project has secured significant stakeholder engagement from a wide variety of partners including the Thai government, Thai banks, the Thai Cement Manufacturers Association, and the Thai Women Engineering Association.  
• A project designed to support the implementation and achievement of NDC in the Pacific Alliance has enhanced regional collaboration and decision-making amongst countries. This contributed to increased ambition for innovative environmental initiatives and increased agency in accessing climate finance. Examples include regional carbon markets, verification systems, and green taxonomy methodologies. The enhanced collaboration has also yielded a pilot initiative centered on how different communities, including Indigenous communities, can be better protected through environmental and social safeguards. 
• In 2023, the Southeast Asia Energy Transition Partnership’s Vietnamese branch developed auction mechanism proposals for inclusion in the national Electricity Law and the National Green Cooling Program. Aiming to unlock energy efficiency and renewables energy investments, these policy upgrades are expected to reduce GHG emissions by 23 million tonnes by 2030 and 89 million tonnes by 2050. 

The impact of ECCC’s ICF is recognized publicly by governments. For example, Liberia highlighted several activities being delivered by ECCC ICF during a formal address to the legislature delivered in January 2025. These activities include the climate smart laboratory at the University of Liberia and Liberia’s National Climate Change Steering Committee. In addition to providing technical assistance to finance these activities, ECCC is sharing with Liberians its expertise on Canada’s engagement approach in the development and implementation of climate policies supported by economy-wide measures such as carbon pricing and sectoral action plans.

4.3. Resource use and value for money

Key findings: Expert literature shows that climate finance allocated to mitigation projects has not yet been effective at reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in developing countries, raising concerns about the effectiveness of global climate finance. However, the evaluation found that ECCC has improved the cost-effectiveness of its mitigation projects over time, achieving a lower cost per tonne of GHG emissions avoided or reduced compared to the second commitment. 

4.3.1. Resource use

Over the evaluated period, ECCC used $106 million to deliver the ICF program. Table 6 presents a breakdown of verified program expenditures.

Source: Financial information provided by Corporate Service and Finances Branch. 

Note: Verified expenditures are not available for fiscal year 2024-2025. The table excludes central charges and corporate services.

4.3.2. Emission reduction cost-effectiveness

Expert literature shows that climate finance allocated to mitigation projects has not yet been effective at reducing GHG emissions in developing countries. This finding puts into question the effectiveness of global climate finance as a mechanism to decrease emissions and slow down the rate of global warming.

According to experts, for climate finance to have a measurable impact on developing countries’ emission levels, larger flows of climate finance and the selection of the most cost-effective investments are both required. While increasing global climate finance levels is likely to be the most impactful driver of developing countries’ emission levels, it is only the selection of cost-effective projects that is within the purview of ECCC’s ICF program, as funder of both multilateral programs and bilateral projects.

The linkage between results and investments can be established most straightforwardly when both variables can be quantified. In climate finance, climate change mitigation projects are most amenable to cost-effectiveness assessments, expressed as a ratio of climate finance invested per tonne of GHG emissions avoided or reduced14, also known as “cost per tonne.” In contrast, adaptation and climate governance projects typically do not lend themselves to cost-effectiveness analyses.

Based on expected reductions, the evaluation found that ECCC has increased the cost-effectiveness of its portfolio of mitigation projects over time. For every dollar allocated by ECCC to climate change mitigation projects under the third ICF commitment so far, 0.3 tonnes of GHG emissions are expected to be avoided or reduced (or $3.33 per tonne). Under the second commitment, 0.22 tonnes of GHG emissions were avoided or reduced per dollar spent (or $4.55 per tonne). This reported cost per tonne is comparable to the most cost-effective projects delivered by multilateral funds (more information provided in Annex 2). 

5. Organizational learning

Organizational learning is the process through which an organization acquires, develops, and transfers knowledge throughout its structure and to its members. This involves creating, retaining, and transferring knowledge to improve the organization's performance and adapt to changes in the environment. Organizations that learn effectively can improve their processes, products, and services, leading to better overall performance. 

While there are several indicators of successful organizational learning, this section reports on recent changes to program design, and how the key recommendation from the previous program evaluation was implemented and to what effect. 

Changes made to Canada's ICF program design improved delivery efficiency by enabling faster allocation of funds, streamlining approval processes, providing greater flexibility in managing transfer payments, and reducing administrative burden for recipients. The 2021 evaluation led to the creation of interdepartmental committees which provide oversight of the ICF commitment and contribute to strategic management and results monitoring. Over time, ECCC and GAC have established collaborative working methods and communication channels, resulting in better work integration and reduced overlap. There are opportunities for greater coordination in several areas.

5.1. Recent changes to program design

Key findings: Learning from their experience with the delivery of the previous climate finance commitment, administrators made several changes to the program design to improve efficiency. These changes have been positively received by recipients, are aligned with global best practices for climate finance, and have no documented downsides.

ECCC’s ICF program administrators made several changes to program design and delivery in the lead-up to Canada’s third ICF commitment. Informed by experience gained in delivering the previous commitment, program administrators and officials identified a need for faster allocation, streamlined approval processes, and greater flexibility in managing transfer payments.

In response to these needs, program officials were successful in obtaining required spending authority delegation. As a result, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change has the financial authority to approve ICF projects that fall within the department’s allocation. According to interviewed senior officials and program administrators, this has improved process efficiency, reduced timelines to obtain approvals, and provided the flexibility to adjust programming to an evolving context.

Program administrators also requested and obtained authorities to adapt ICF terms and conditions to the specific nature, context, and requirements associated with the delivery of development assistance, in line with the global best practices in climate finance. As a result of revised terms and conditions, larger payments can be transferred to recipients without the need for Treasury Board approval, and either up-front multi-year funding or larger advance payments can be provided to recipients.

All interviewed recipients who also received funding from the second ICF commitment viewed the new flexibilities as positive. They noted the cash management flexibilities reduce administrative burden, increase ability to address unforeseen circumstances, and generally allow them to spend more time and funding on activities that generate results. The evaluation did not identify any disadvantages to the added flexibilities provided by the revised terms and conditions, concluding that these are both better aligned with global best practices for improving access to climate finance and more fit for purpose than the previous transfer payment parameters.

Additional changes to program design include the early selection of recipients and the establishment of the EPF (both discussed in section 3.1). 

5.2. Formal governance

Key findings: The 2021 evaluation recommended that ECCC and GAC ensure a coordinated and coherent approach to climate finance, which led to the establishment of interdepartmental committees to oversee the implementation of Canada's international climate finance commitments. These committees, involving various federal departments, have improved strategic management and monitoring of progress.

A horizontal evaluation of Canada’s activities supporting international climate change cooperation was completed in 2021. The evaluation examined the delivery of Canada’s second ICF commitment and made a recommendation for better definition and coordination of roles and responsibilities and to leverage potential opportunities for better coordination within the federal community to improve delivery of ICF programming. 

Senior officials and program administrators agreed with this recommendation. It subsequently informed the approach to the design, delivery, and governance of the third commitment. Since then, ECCC and GAC have established and are co-chairing two interdepartmental committees, at the deputy minister and director general levels, to oversee the implementation of Canada’s ICF commitments, including by reviewing and approving an annual investment plan. Their mandate is to monitor progress and ensure Canada’s ICF program is managed strategically. Meeting documents show monitoring of progress and discussions toward the achievement of the targets.

Other federal departments and agencies with expertise on climate finance and climate action, including Natural Resources Canada; Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Finance Canada, the Treasury Board; Parks Canada; and the Privy Council Office are members on these committees and are involved in deliberations.

The present evaluation found that the terms of reference establish clear roles and responsibilities, and that the director general committee provides a forum for strategic deliberations. Interviewed senior officials were of the view that the director general committee was the most appropriate venue to have substantive and strategic discussions related to climate finance, questioning whether there is a continued need for the deputy minister committee. They also mentioned that these committees enforce coordination between GAC and ECCC in preparing and presenting a coherent approach to climate finance.

5.3 Coordination

Key findings: ECCC and GAC have established collaborative ways of working and regular communication channels to implement Canada's third International Climate Finance commitment, building on lessons learned from the second commitment. Overall, the evaluation found evidence of better work integration and reduced overlap. There are nevertheless opportunities for greater coordination in results reporting, recipient selection, agreement processes, sharing of project insights, and developing a strategic project pipeline to enhance the impact of Canada’s public climate finance.

As ECCC and GAC worked together to implement and deliver on the Government of Canada’s second ICF commitment, program administrators from both departments have put in place collaborative ways of working and regular communication channels at various levels of the respective organizations. 

To address the recommendation from the 2021 evaluation, ECCC and GAC senior officials and ICF program administrators committed to continue their ongoing collaboration on the policy design, delivery, oversight and performance reporting of climate finance; to build on the lessons learned from the implementation of the second commitment; and to define roles more clearly for the implementation of any future climate finance contribution, including by formalizing outreach and engagement with key federal organizations. The departments also committed to define roles and responsibilities based on respective mandates, expertise, and ability to deliver on priorities.

The evaluation found that ECCC and GAC have indeed continued their ongoing collaboration to oversee, manage, and administer Canada’s ICF program. Interviewees described the collaboration as being very good, supported by frequent communication at all levels and by an improved understanding of roles and responsibilities over time. This improved understanding has translated into better work integration and reduced work overlap across departmental teams. 

Interviewed senior officials and program administrators from both departments nevertheless highlighted opportunities for greater coordination in the following five areas:

• Reporting on results is currently performed by both departments at different stages. The process is viewed by several program administrators as duplicative and inefficient.
• ECCC’s recipient selection process could benefit from GAC’s list of trusted partners when assessing risk levels and determining which transfer payment should be selected for given projects.
• Agreement negotiation, drafting, and signature could benefit from increased collaboration and coordination among departments. Most interviewees are of the view that developing a single Government of Canada template for climate finance agreements would not only improve recipient experience and limit administrative costs, but it would also align with global best practices related to harmonization of processes for accessing climate finance.
• Sharing experience gained from projects and insights gathered from implementing partners is currently limited between ECCC and GAC, and no mechanism or process supports this exchange. Interviewees are of the view that improving the collection and distribution of project-level information across teams would support agreement negotiation.
• ECCC and GAC have complementary expertise, capacity, and climate finance instruments. Interviewees noted that Canada’s climate finance could achieve greater impact if it focused on increasing projects’ maturity over time (from capacity building to project demonstration and deployment) and transitioning in parallel from primarily public to primarily private sources of climate finance. This approach would require greater strategic coordination in project selection and the development of a notional project pipeline over longer periods than five-year commitments. It would also align with global best practices related to flexibility and innovation, specifically related to using public climate finance to establish or strengthen an enabling environment for private flows of climate finance.

6. Conclusion

The evaluation of the International Climate Finance (ICF) program provides insights into its relevance, design, delivery, effectiveness, and organizational learning. The program has demonstrated alignment with Canada's international commitments and the needs of developing countries, leveraging Environment and Climate Change Canada’s (ECCC) expertise to support climate governance, capacity building, and priority sectors. The joint delivery approach with Global Affairs Canada (GAC) has proven effective, utilizing complementary expertise and capacity to maximize impact.

ECCC’s contribution to the ICF program has been substantial, with projects supporting country ownership, climate governance capacity, and innovative approaches aligned with global best practices. However, areas for improvement include gender integration and the timeliness of agreement signature and fund disbursement. 

The selection of recipients and transfer payment instruments has balanced administrative burden with oversight, although increasing flexibility in instrument choice could enhance efficiency while continuing to manage risks. The Emerging Priorities Fund (EPF) has provided useful flexibility, though its design parameters have limited its impact. Agreement negotiation and signature faced challenges due to insufficient capacity and expertise, requiring additional resources and coordination with GAC. Despite these challenges, all planned funding was transferred to recipients on time, with ECCC's administration costs remaining low.

Performance measurement is occurring, though there is a need for improved disaggregation of project-level results by identity factors and systematic collection of performance data for capacity building projects. ECCC's ICF program has achieved notable project-level outputs, such as the establishment of climate governance communities and successful pilot projects. The program's cost-effectiveness has improved, with a lower reported cost per tonne of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions avoided or reduced compared to previous commitments.

Organizational learning has led to recent changes in program design, improving delivery efficiency and flexibility. The establishment of interdepartmental committees has enhanced strategic management and monitoring of progress. ECCC and GAC have developed collaborative working methods and communication channels, though opportunities for greater coordination remain.

7. Recommendations, Management Responses and Action Plan

The recommendations to follow are directed to ECCC’s Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch (SPIAB) for consideration. They are expected to require collaboration with partners involved in Canada’s ICF program. 

Recommendation 1: The Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch (SPIAB) should review options that could increase efficiency, such as re-considering the balance between the use of grants versus contributions, and the selection of larger projects.

Management Response:

Agree. 

A renewal of the International Climate Finance envelope would allow SPIAB to shift strategically toward larger-scale projects to enhance project capacity, effectiveness, and overall program impact. Grants will be prioritized where risk profiles permit, while contributions will support smaller organizations with proven or strong potential for results, delivering more measurable and sustainable outcomes aligned with ICF program goals.

Action 1: SPIAB will review its approach to funding allocation, reconsidering the balance between grants and contributions.

Action 2: SPIAB will collaborate with the Programs, Operations and Regional Affairs Branch (PORAB) to advance the development of standardized grant agreements for application under international climate finance programming.

Management Response:

Agree. 

A renewed Emerging Priorities Fund (EPF) would be informed by the lessons learned under the 2021-26 EPF and aim to integrate 1) a more flexible approval process to allow for quick and responsive decision making by the Minister of Environment and Climate Change; 2) the use of grants (where appropriate) to decrease the timelines required for agreement negotiation; and 3) the use of multi-year funding (where appropriate) to address the limitations of one-year funding agreements under the 2021-26 EPF.

Action 1: SPIAB will review and revise the design elements of the Emerging Priorities Fund.

Recommendation 3 The Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch (SPIAB) should improve performance measurement, monitoring and reporting to demonstrate results and impact of investments at the program and project levels.

Management Response:

Agree. 

SPIAB will work with GAC to strengthen the Departments’ joint performance measurement approach to improve the relevance, accuracy, consistency, and overall quality of reporting to ensure that outcomes are appropriately and consistently documented and communicated. By supporting internal learning efforts and external strategic communications, the impact and value of ICF programming is reinforced. 

Action 1: SPIAB will continue to engage with GAC in a coordinated partnership to implement improved performance measurement approaches.

Recommendation 4: The Assistant Deputy Minister of Strategic Policy and International Affairs Branch (SPIAB) should keep working with Global Affairs Canada (GAC) to better coordinate and manage projects, enhancing the impact of Canada's public climate finance.

Management Response:

Agree. 

SPIAB will work with GAC to strengthen the Departments’ coordination and governance approach to leverage appropriate expertise, capacity, and financial instruments for project selection and implementation. Renewed inter-Departmental advisory committees would be co-chaired by SPIAB and GAC to discuss strategies, monitor program progress, ensure policy alignment and consider future opportunities. SPIAB and GAC will collaborate in particular towards developing a pipeline approach to project selection and implementation, with the intention to enable some project activities to transition from early-stage support for enabling environments towards larger-scale investment opportunities, including for potential funding through GAC’s repayable contributions, Multilateral Development Banks or other public or private climate funds.  

Action 1: SPIAB will continue to collaborate with GAC to select and manage a strategically relevant pipeline of ICF projects.

8. Annex 1. Allocation of ECCC’s international climate finance funding

Figure 4. Allocation of ECCC’s international climate finance funding

9. Annex 2. Cost per tonne comparisons

The table below presents the cost per reduction of a tonne of GHG, across climate finance interventions. 

Note: Data provided by ECCC’s ICF program administrators, and extracted from the Green Climate Fund website, a 2022 Global Environment Facility report, and a 2023 Sustainable Energy Fund for Africa report.