The Rotterdam-based Global Centre on Adaptation (GCA) is under fire after a Dutch public broadcaster investigation said it overstated its role and results to attract subsidies and donations. GCA had claimed it helped create 900,000 jobs, mobilised €25 billion in investments and improved the lives of 82.5 million people in Africa. Reporters found many of those projects were mainly run and financed by other organisations, not GCA itself.
Funding at risk and a possible move to Kenya
Following the revelations, the Dutch government is expected to end national funding from 2026, according to media reports. The UK has already withdrawn support, and the Gates Foundation is said to be reviewing its position. GCA’s CEO Patrick Verkooijen has floated relocating the centre to Nairobi if Dutch backing stops; Dutch media previously reported The Hague had already decided to phase out support, raising the chance of a move.
What the investigation found
NOS journalists compared GCA’s claims with World Bank documents and found 16 projects where GCA said it played a big role but was not mentioned in official reports; the Bank confirmed GCA’s involvement in five of those cases. Independent experts called the centre’s impact numbers “grossly exaggerated” when set against its ~€22 million annual income. Donors also described GCA as “difficult to work with,” and said it sometimes claimed credit for projects it did not initiate or support.
Photo Credits: micheile henderson/unsplash
GCA’s response and current work
GCA says it works to speed up climate adaptation, especially in vulnerable countries, by advising governments and finance institutions and by raising money for adaptation programmes. It highlights ongoing initiatives (such as support for small island states and youth adaptation events) while an independent evaluation of its Africa programme (by BCG) was published this summer. The organisation maintains public information about its programmes on its website.
If key donors pull back, GCA could shrink or relocate, affecting staff in Rotterdam and planned projects in Africa and elsewhere. More broadly, the case raises questions about impact reporting in the climate-aid sector: how credit is shared among partners, and how donors verify results before writing cheques. Dutch and European funders will now weigh whether GCA’s model and governance still meet their standards, or whether changes are needed to rebuild trust.
