-1

This report by CPI and the OECD explores methodologies for estimating private finance mobilized for climate adaptation in developing countries. It finds that private adaptation finance is significantly under-represented compared to mitigation (less than 10% of total mobilized private climate finance) and is difficult to track because private actors often integrate resilience into general business operations rather than labeling it as 'adaptation.' The study proposes four methodological approaches to capture direct and indirect mobilization, noting that while direct measurement is more practical, capturing indirect mobilization is essential to avoid underestimating total finance and to incentivize upstream public support.

• Private finance mobilized for climate adaptation is significantly lower than that for mitigation. Of the private finance estimated as mobilized by developed countries' public finance, adaptation accounts for less than 10%, while over 90% is mobilized for mitigation.
• Public finance for adaptation from developed to developing countries was estimated at USD 7.9 billion for the 2013-14 average annual period, which is just under 20% of total public climate finance. An additional USD 3.9 billion, or just under 10%, addressed both mitigation and adaptation.
• There is a critical lack of publicly available data on private adaptation finance mobilized by public interventions. Activity-level data for bilateral and multilateral development finance for adaptation indicated possible private finance involvement in only about 7% of recorded activities in 2013, by both number of activities and finance volumes.
• The document defines three types of private finance mobilization: direct (co-financed alongside public finance into the same project/fund), intermediated-direct (provided via a fund or credit line one step upstream), and indirect (resulting from enabling outputs like capacity building or policy development that occur one or more steps upstream).
• The study tested four methodological approaches to measure mobilization, ranging from 'Approach 1' (direct only) to 'Approach 4' (direct, intermediated-direct, and indirect expanded). Testing showed that the estimated amount of mobilized private adaptation finance changes significantly depending on the methodology used.
• There is an inverse relationship between the accuracy and incentives of a measurement approach versus its practicality and potential for standardization. While direct mobilization is easier to quantify, ignoring indirect mobilization can lead to underestimations of total private finance and may disincentivize the provision of necessary upstream support for project and market development.
• Tracking private adaptation finance is hindered by the fact that private actors rarely use the term 'adaptation,' instead viewing climate resilience as part of broader risk management. Consequently, resilience activities are often integrated into normal business operations (e.g., water efficiency improvements) and are not reported as stand-alone adaptation investments.

APA

-1 (n.d.). -1. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Estimating-mobilized-private-finance-for-adaptation-Executive-Summary.pdf

Chicago

-1. -1. Climate Policy Initiative, n.d. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Estimating-mobilized-private-finance-for-adaptation-Executive-Summary.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=-1 |title=-1 |publisher=Climate Policy Initiative |url=https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Estimating-mobilized-private-finance-for-adaptation-Executive-Summary.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{1nd, author = {-1}, title = {{-1}}, institution = {Climate Policy Initiative}, url = {https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Estimating-mobilized-private-finance-for-adaptation-Executive-Summary.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }