Mobilising International Climate Finance

The report finds that while developed countries exceeded their US$ 30 billion Fast-Start Finance (FSF) target, much of the funding was not 'new and additional' and was heavily skewed toward mitigation over adaptation. Only 18% of FSF supported adaptation, and the distribution of funds closely mirrored existing Official Development Assistance (ODA) patterns rather than correlating with greenhouse gas emissions or country vulnerability. The study highlights a lack of transparency in reporting and suggests that future finance should better target vulnerable countries and avoid funding climate-incompatible development.

• Developed countries reported mobilising US$ 35 billion in Fast-Start Finance (FSF) from 2010 to 2012, surpassing the initial US$ 30 billion commitment. However, the report notes that these figures should be viewed with caution as countries used divergent definitions of what qualifies as FSF and generally lacked strict thresholds for determining if the funds were 'new and additional'.
• Climate finance was heavily biased toward mitigation and REDD+, which received 71% of FSF, while adaptation and resilience efforts received only 18%. Mitigation finance was primarily focused on Asia, whereas 40% of adaptation finance was directed toward Small Island Developing States (SIDS) and Least Developed Countries (LDCs).
• The distribution of FSF did not correlate strongly with the greenhouse gas emission levels of recipient countries or their vulnerability to climate change. Instead, the allocation of FSF closely followed the patterns of non-climate-related Official Development Assistance (ODA), with nearly 80% of FSF reported as ODA.
• Funding instruments were split nearly evenly between grants and debt-based instruments, with 48% of finance delivered as loans, guarantees, and insurance, and 46% as grants. Only about 34% of the finance directly targeted governments in developing countries, with the remainder flowing through intermediaries such as multilateral development banks and the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs).
• Transparency and reporting quality varied significantly among the 37 reporting countries. While some transitioned to full project-level reporting, others provided limited or aggregate information, complicating the assessment of whether commitments were met with mutual accountability.

APA

World Resources Institute (n.d.). Mobilising International Climate Finance. https://www.wri.org/research/mobilising-international-climate-finance

Chicago

World Resources Institute. Mobilising International Climate Finance. n.d. https://www.wri.org/research/mobilising-international-climate-finance.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=World Resources Institute |title=Mobilising International Climate Finance |url=https://www.wri.org/research/mobilising-international-climate-finance |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{worldresourcesinstitutendmobilising, author = {{World Resources Institute}}, title = {{Mobilising International Climate Finance}}, institution = {World Resources Institute}, url = {https://www.wri.org/research/mobilising-international-climate-finance}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }