The Landscape of Methane Abatement Finance

The report finds that targeted methane abatement finance is severely underfunded, representing less than 2% of total climate finance in 2019/2020. While the fossil fuel and AFOLU sectors are the largest emitters, the waste sector received the majority of funding. The authors argue that a ten-fold increase in annual investment is required to meet climate goals and recommend stronger regulatory signals, improved emission measurement, and dedicated project pipelines to close the finance gap.

• Targeted methane abatement finance is critically underfunded relative to its mitigation potential, representing just over USD 11 billion in 2019/2020, which is less than 2% of total climate finance flows.
• There is a significant investment gap, with an estimated annual need of more than USD 110 billion from public and private sources to meet a +2°C warming scenario, requiring at least a ten-fold increase from current levels.
• Investment is misaligned with emission sources; the waste sector received nearly two-thirds of methane abatement funding, while the fossil fuel sector, despite high potential, received less than 0.5% (USD 0.1 billion).
• Geographically, methane abatement finance is heavily concentrated in the East Asia and Pacific region, which received over 50% (USD 6.0 billion) of tracked finance in 2019/2020, leaving other major emitters like Latin America, the Caribbean, and Sub-Saharan Africa underfunded.
• In the fossil fuel sector, the oil and gas subsector dominates the limited available finance, despite coal mining emissions potentially exceeding those of the oil and gas sector.
• The waste sector's funding is dominated by waste incineration (69% of sub-sector finance), which may have uncertain climate impacts due to CO2 trade-offs and a primary focus on energy generation rather than methane abatement.
• AFOLU methane abatement finance reached USD 4.2 billion in 2019/2020, but is dominated by energy projects from forestry and crop residues, while hard-to-abate sources like enteric fermentation receive very low investment (USD 9 million).
• Private sector actors provided the majority of tracked financial flows, particularly in mature segments like waste-to-energy, while multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs) accounted for 13% of all flows.

APA

Rosane, P., Naran, B., Pastor, A. O., & Connolly, J. (2022). The Landscape of Methane Abatement Finance. Climate Policy Initiative. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Landscape-of-Methane-Abatement-Finance.pdf

Chicago

Rosane, Paul, Baysa Naran, Angela Ortega Pastor, and Jake Connolly. The Landscape of Methane Abatement Finance. Climate Policy Initiative, 2022. https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Landscape-of-Methane-Abatement-Finance.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Rosane |first1=Paul |last2=Naran |first2=Baysa |last3=Pastor |first3=Angela Ortega |last4=Connolly |first4=Jake |title=The Landscape of Methane Abatement Finance |publisher=Climate Policy Initiative |date=July 2022 |url=https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Landscape-of-Methane-Abatement-Finance.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{rosane2022landscape, author = {Rosane, Paul and Naran, Baysa and Pastor, Angela Ortega and Connolly, Jake}, title = {{The Landscape of Methane Abatement Finance}}, institution = {Climate Policy Initiative}, year = {2022}, month = jul, url = {https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Landscape-of-Methane-Abatement-Finance.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }