Project Selection
Criteria for Project Selection
CTAF gives priority to proposals that bring together a credible, advanced climate technology, clear country ownership and local partnerships, measurable results for climate mitigation or adaptation, attention to gender equality and social inclusion where relevant and a realistic path to replication, commercialization or future financing.
The full scoring matrix and selection criteria used by the two working groups as well as the Project Steering Committee, can be found in the following tables.
Scoring Matrix
| Score Range | Assessment | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 16-20 | 12-15 | 8-10 | Excellent. Strongly meets the criterion with compelling evidence and minimal weaknesses. |
| 11-15 | 9-11 | 7-9 | Good. Adequately meets the criterion with only minor weaknesses or uncertainties. |
| 6-10 | 5-8 | 4-6 | Fair. Partially meets the criterion but contains notable weaknesses, gaps, or risks. |
| 0-5 | 0-4 | 0-3 | Weak. Does not adequately address the criterion or lacks sufficient evidence. |
Technology & Policy Expert Working Group
Review Criteria
| Criteria | Score | Evaluation Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Future-oriented climate technology | 20 | Alignment with CTAF's focus on future-oriented and innovative climate technologies, including climate-tech, AI/AX, digital, clean technology, or other emerging solutions. |
| Technical feasibility & maturity | 15 | Technical readiness, operational feasibility, and whether the proposed technology can be tested, adapted, or deployed within the expected CTAF implementation period. |
| Commercialization potential | 15 | Potential pathway toward commercialization, market uptake, business model development, or transition into a bankable or sustainable project. |
| Patent/IP potential | 10 | Potential to use, adapt, generate, or package intellectual property, patentable elements, technology know-how, or Korean climate technology advantages. |
| Demonstration effectiveness | 15 | Potential to generate visible, practical, and evidence-based demonstration outcomes within the CTAF project period. |
| Policy & regulatory linkage | 10 | Relevance to local government policy priorities, regulatory needs, standards, institutional frameworks, or policy improvement opportunities. |
| Social inclusion & job potential | 5 | Potential contribution to local employment, inclusion of vulnerable groups, gender or youth inclusion, and broader socioeconomic benefits. |
| Timeline & insight output | 10 | Likelihood of producing meaningful outputs, implementation insights, lessons learned, or input for CTAF insight reporting within the timeline. |
Country & Regional Expert Working Group
Review Criteria
| Criteria | Score | Evaluation Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Country demand & ownership | 20 | Clear demand from the country office, government counterparts, or local partners; degree of country ownership and implementation interest. |
| Regional relevance & strategic fit | 15 | Alignment with regional priorities, country context, GGGI regional strategy, and practical needs across the region. |
| Implementation readiness | 15 | Availability of local partners, institutional arrangements, data, sites, enabling conditions, and realistic implementation pathway. |
| Partnership & cooperation potential | 15 | Potential for regional, cross-country, North-North, North-South, or multi-stakeholder cooperation. |
| Scalability & replication potential | 15 | Potential for scale-up or replication beyond the initial country, including regional or global applicability. |
| Linkage with future financing | 10 | Potential to connect with existing funds, MDB/development finance, climate finance, ODA, private investment, or future CTAF funding. |
| Regional demonstration value | 5 | Potential to generate visible regional learning, showcase outcomes, or practical examples for other countries. |
| Risk & coordination considerations | 5 | Key implementation, coordination, political, regulatory, or stakeholder risks from the regional/country perspective. |
CTAF Project Steering Committee Review Criteria
| Criteria | Score | Evaluation Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Future-oriented climate technology & Innovation | 20 | Technology readiness and maturity, innovation, comparative advantage over existing alternatives, technical feasibility, and evidence from previous pilots, demonstrations, or deployments. |
| Future Financing & Sustainability | 20 | Credibility of future financing pathways, potential for commercialization, investment mobilization, government adoption, long-term sustainability, and follow-on project development, including climate-tech, AI/AX, digital, clean technology, or other emerging solutions. |
| Demonstration Feasibility & Implementation Readiness | 20 | Suitability of the demonstration concept and site, implementation arrangements, partner capacity, permitting and operational feasibility, and overall likelihood of successful execution. |
| Scale-up, Replication & Knowledge Generation | 15 | Potential to generate meaningful evidence, support future decision-making, enable national expansion, cross-country replication, or broader technology transfer. |
| Strategic Relevance & Country Ownership | 15 | Relevance to national climate priorities, NDCs, NAPs, sector strategies, and government needs. Degree of country ownership, stakeholder engagement, and alignment with CTAF objectives. |
| Partnership & cooperation potential | 10 | Potential for regional, cross-country, North-North, North-South, or multi-stakeholder cooperation. |