Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2013-2021

Opportunities to scale up finance for adaptation and the mobilisation of private finance

As highlighted by the volumes and composition of climate finance provided and mobilised presented in the previous section, as well as recent in-depth analyses of underlying trends (OECD, 2022[3]), there is a pressing need for international providers to significantly scale up their efforts in two essential areas: adaptation finance and the mobilisation of private finance. Adaptation finance is key to building resilience, allowing developing countries to address and alleviate the effects of climate change, and guiding them towards sustainable socio-economic growth. Such financing can support developing countries in establishing climate-resilient infrastructure and practices, incorporating climate risk considerations into economic planning, and developing local disaster response strategies. Concurrently, the private sector is poised to play a growing role in financing climate action but requires the proactive involvement of governments and international institutions to support, incentivise and de-risk individual projects, as well as to create the necessary conditions for investment in developing countries more generally. Scaling up both adaptation finance and the mobilisation of private finance requires a major reorientation in the scope, composition, and strategic use of international climate finance.

The OECD’s two latest analyses in this area – “Scaling up the mobilisation of private finance for climate action in developing countries” (OECD, 2023[4]), and “Scaling up adaptation finance in developing countries” (OECD, 2023[5])– outline a set of actions and recommendations for international providers to increase finance for adaptation, and to more effectively mobilise private finance for climate action. Combining the findings from these two reports reveals three levels of actions for international providers, at which a systematic and concerted shift needs to take place.

• There is a need for international providers to adapt and evolve the financial products and mechanisms they offer to enhance the reach and effectiveness of climate finance. Climate finance providers should draw on international best practices to significantly increase the use of instruments that have successfully mobilised private finance, including guarantees and risk insurance, syndicated loans, targeted grants, as well as other blended finance and de-risking tools. Moreover, exploring the use of innovative mechanisms has the potential to result in additional resources for climate action and finance in developing countries, notably for adaptation. Examples include: using Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) to contribute to setting up new mechanisms such as IMF Resilience and Sustainability Trust or to strengthen or augment MDB capital; directing proceeds from international carbon market to, e.g., the Adaptation Fund; and, promoting debt-for-adaptation swaps. It is essential to integrate adaptation considerations into thein sustainable finance frameworks and instruments, such as sustainability-linked bonds, that are increasingly being developed and implemented in many jurisdictions.

• Support for building capacity in terms of project development, financial literacy, and operational efficiency strengthens developing countries’ abilities to access, absorb, and effectively utilise climate finance. International providers should expand their capacity-building initiatives to boost developing countries’ potential to attract investments, particularly in the realm of climate adaptation. By reinforcing institutional structures, enhancing technical proficiencies, and promoting robust information dissemination about climate risks, international providers can effectively set the stage for substantial investment. A key area of focus should be supporting the creation of tailored and investable project pipelines for climate action. Concurrently, with a special emphasis on private sector engagement, especially among micro-, small, and medium-sized enterprises (MSMEs), it is vital to ensure businesses have access to pertinent information, including financial frameworks that reflect both climate mitigation and resilience considerations. These efforts not only strengthen local financial institutions but also promote business models centred on low-GHG climate-adaptive goods and services.

• International providers should collaborate more coherently and systematically, notably through country and regional platforms and other long-term arrangements. Such initiatives can promote sustained climate action with programmatic financial and technical support. It is essential to bridge the gaps between finance providers, as well as creating mechanisms and frameworks that allow the private sector, civil society, and governmental entities to work together more efficiently. One of the aims is to ensure that the private sector and civil society are brought in from the onset to help develop long-term climate action plans and sector-level strategies that they can then contribute to implementing. This approach can help address barriers to investment early on to unlock commercial finance, whilst allowing the more effective management of wider socio-economic impacts of the climate transition.

Building on these common messages, the below sections provide a selection of more detailed recommendations for scaling up mobilised private climate finance, and adaptation finance.

Key recommendations for scaling up the mobilisation of private finance for climate action

Tailor project- and country-level interventions to de-risk markets and reflect changing dynamics in key sectors.

There is considerable scope to improve the effectiveness of public climate finance in mobilising private finance. In most climate action areas, loans provided with long maturities continue to dominate international public climate finance. Meanwhile, across sectors, the volumes mobilised by international providers via existing leveraging and blended finance mechanisms remain low relative to overall public finance flows. Scaling up and tailoring the use of mechanisms such as syndicated loans, credit lines, guarantees, and investments in collective investment vehicles, is critical to help improve the risk-return profile of climate-related investment in specific country and sector contexts. The increased use of such mechanisms can help climate finance providers to exit projects more rapidly once they are commercially viable, thereby freeing up financial capacities for other emerging priorities. Further improvements in data collection and reporting as well as transparency on accounting methodologies relating to bilateral and multilateral public climate finance and the private finance it mobilises through various mechanisms would help inform such shifts in providers’ portfolios.

Approaches and mechanisms to mobilise private finance need to be tailored to specific sectors, technologies, and geographies. In more mature sectors like clean energy, the rapidly improving commercial landscape in some developing countries implies a greater scope and potential for private investment. International public climate finance should adapt to these dynamics and prioritise the mobilisation of private finance in such cases. For sectors like agriculture and forestry, where the scope for commercial investment often remains more limited, there is nevertheless scope to deploy climate finance in more innovative ways to mobilise private finance, while also providing benefits for biodiversity.

Scale up the use of cross-border financing mechanisms and improve co-ordination to channel global finance.

The small scale of many projects and transactions, coupled with information asymmetries, remain major barriers to investors across all climate action areas. Although climate projects are often small in scale, in aggregate they present significant climate mitigation and adaptation potential. International investors often lack the in-country presence, capacity, and financial interest to invest in such small projects. Consequently, private investors and financial institutions have repeatedly called for the development of mechanisms to aggregate smaller constituent assets and projects in developing countries into larger, rateable, tradeable assets. Relatively small amounts of public climate finance can be used to support such structured finance mechanisms, including through aggregation and securitisation. Furthermore, support for standardisation of contracts and project documentation can help address capacity constraints amongst commercial investors and mobilise private finance.

Enhance the role of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)

The 2023 G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration includes a commitment to pursuing reforms for more effective MDBs. To contribute to this, bilateral providers must use their shareholdings in MDBs to advocate for the integration of private finance mobilisation strategies within these banks’ core objectives. These targets must be underpinned by tangible plans and action to expand, enhance, and diversify risk transfer tools, ensuring that financial strategies are both inclusive and adaptive to the evolving nature of climate-related needs and risks. These strategies should be tailored to individual sectors and country-specific contexts, and periodically reassessed based on the evolving investment landscape. MDBs must ensure that the drive for private finance mobilisation does not detract from overarching sustainable development goals or result in unintended consequences that may conflict with such goals, particularly in low-income and least developed countries. A greater focus on private finance mobilisation should be undertaken with a holistic view of broader MDB mandates and objectives to avoid any unintended consequences on wide development priorities, including poverty reduction, health, and education. Using public finance more efficiently, for example by de-risking projects rather than financing them in whole, can in turn free up resources for more support to less commercially viable climate action priorities and wider development priorities, including in low-income countries.

Key recommendations for scaling up adaptation finance

Assess the consistency of forward-looking spending plans with adaptation finance ambitions, including with a view to unlocking private finance

In line with the UNFCCC COP26 Glasgow Climate Pact, international providers should reassess their targets and forward spending plans to align with the call to double adaptation finance by 2025. This effort demands not only stronger individual pledges, but also co-ordination among providers to maximise collective impact. International providers should ensure that adaptation is mainstreamed as a key priority within their climate finance portfolios, acknowledging the irreplaceable function of public finance in supporting vital activities that offer no or limited direct financial returns. Importantly, commitments to scale up public adaptation finance not only address immediate adaptation needs but also have the potential to incentivise private sector engagement. This would strengthen the integration of climate resilience in commercially viable activities such as infrastructure projects. International providers should enhance their understanding of links between private investors’ preferences, notably in terms of secure revenue streams, and the characteristics of adaptation activities. As highlighted in the previous section, mobilising private finance for adaptation requires tailored project- and country-level interventions.

Provide more opportunities for direct financial access and support enhanced expertise in project formulation

International providers should take proactive steps to make adaptation finance more accessible. For many developing countries seeking financial support for adaptation activities, navigating the international climate finance architecture is challenging, especially with the diverse eligibility criteria, access modalities, and administrative requirements set by different providers. Harmonising and simplifying application procedures across climate finance providers would make a real difference. Concurrently, providing further direct access to resources of multilateral climate funds can give impetus to locally driven adaptation projects. The intricacies of accreditation and evaluation processes, which often stand as barriers, can be overcome through mechanisms like one-step project appraisals and fostering mutual recognition of accreditation across funds. Furthermore, consolidating the fragmented climate funds landscape would help. This can be achieved by avoiding the creation of overlapping funds and further strengthening coordination and efficiency among existing funds. Lastly, international providers should pivot towards a long-term capacity development approach that prioritises local expertise. Such strategies include embedding experts within domestic government institutions and nurturing regional support structures to support developing countries in preparing adaptation project proposals.

Shift towards programmatic approaches that emphasise national priorities

International providers should scale up the use of programmatic approaches for the development of impactful adaptation project pipelines in developing countries, which are critical to enhancing the effectiveness and scalability of adaptation finance. By embedding multiple interconnected projects within multi-year programmes aligned with national strategies, such approaches lead to better government buy-in, improved local planning capacities, and greater integration of adaptation in holistic, cross-sectoral ways. International providers can actively back adaptation planning by emphasising stronger connections between the National Adaptation Plan process and adaptation programmes. By championing country ownership in programming, they can offer targeted technical support and endorse instruments like national climate funds. Early commitments to stable funding for such programmatic approaches, coupled with financial flexibility during execution phases, is key. Furthermore, international providers should consider the creation of country platforms for adaptation, incorporating support and co-financing efforts, thereby fostering a more collaborative, effective, and flexible adaptation financing ecosystem. Here again, such efforts could be informed by continued efforts to enhance adaptation-related data disclosure on public climate finance and the private finance it mobilises, as well as underlying accounting methodologies.