Why the World Bank Climate Investment Funds Should be Stopped

The document critiques the World Bank's proposed Climate Investment Funds (CIF), consisting of the Clean Technology Fund and the Strategic Climate Fund, arguing that the Bank is an unsuitable manager due to its continued financing of fossil fuels. It highlights concerns regarding the lack of democratic design, the potential for funding 'clean coal', and the unethical use of repayable loans for adaptation in developing countries. The author calls for climate financing to be moved into a transparent multilateral framework under the UNFCCC.

• The Climate Investment Funds (CIF) are expected to be valued between $7 billion and $12 billion and consist of two primary components: the Clean Technology Fund (CTF), targeting US$5–10 billion for low carbon growth and clean technology deployment, and the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF), valued at US$300–500 million for adaptation and mitigation programs such as the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (PPCR).
• The World Bank is deemed an unsuitable manager for climate funds because it is the largest multilateral lender for fossil fuel projects, providing approximately $1 billion annually to the oil and gas industry. Between financial years 2005 and 2006, the Bank's support for fossil fuel projects increased by 93 percent, from US$450 million to US$869 million, while renewable energy and energy efficiency constituted only 10 percent of new energy lending in fiscal year 2005.
• The CIFs are criticized for being designed through a top-down, undemocratic process led by the UK, US, and Japan, which marginalized civil society and developing countries. Furthermore, the Clean Technology Fund lacks a clear definition of "clean," risking the funding of "slightly less dirty" projects like carbon capture and storage or 'clean coal'.
• The use of repayable loans for climate adaptation in vulnerable developing countries via the Strategic Climate Fund is described as unethical, as it increases the debt burden of countries that are not historically responsible for climate change.
• The document argues that climate funding should be moved away from the World Bank's non-transparent structures and instead be placed within a genuine multilateral framework under the auspices of the UNFCCC to ensure adequate representation of both developed and developing nations.

APA

Friends of the Earth International (2008). Why the World Bank Climate Investment Funds Should be Stopped. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Briefer-on-WB-Climate-Investment-Funds_EN.pdf

Chicago

Friends of the Earth International. Why the World Bank Climate Investment Funds Should be Stopped. 2008. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Briefer-on-WB-Climate-Investment-Funds_EN.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=Friends of the Earth International |title=Why the World Bank Climate Investment Funds Should be Stopped |date=June 2008 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Briefer-on-WB-Climate-Investment-Funds_EN.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{friendsoftheearthinternational2008why, author = {{Friends of the Earth International}}, title = {{Why the World Bank Climate Investment Funds Should be Stopped}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2008}, month = jun, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Briefer-on-WB-Climate-Investment-Funds_EN.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }