IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cgd/ppaper/287.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Concessional Climate Finance: Is the MDB Architecture Working?

Author

Listed:
  • Nancy Lee

    (Center for Global Development)

  • Clemence Landers

    (Center for Global Development)

  • Samuel Matthews

    (Center for Global Development)

Abstract

Our paper evaluates the climate financial intermediary funds (FIFs) which are one of the largest sources of multilateral grant and concessional finance for climate, especially for middle-income countries. Donors have contributed more than $50 billion to these funds. The World Bank acts as a trustee for twelve climate FIFs. In this paper, we focus on the three largest: the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Climate Investment Funds (CIF), and Green Climate Fund (GCF). Our findings reveal significant challenges at the systemic level and differing performance across FIFs. FIF funding is not allocated according to shared criteria measuring results and impact, nor are there consistent results and impact reporting standards. This makes it hard for donors to assess where best to put their scarce grant resources. Based on our analysis, we recommend consolidating funds in order to increase efficiency and impact; deploying more concessional funds at the climate finance portfolio (vs. transaction) level to achieve greater scale and leverage; avoiding the creation of new climate funds that would further fragment this system; and allocating FIF finance according to a shared set of criteria that maximizes mitigation and adaptation impact and impact per dollar of FIF funding.

Suggested Citation

  • Nancy Lee & Clemence Landers & Samuel Matthews, 2023. "Concessional Climate Finance: Is the MDB Architecture Working?," Policy Papers 287, Center for Global Development.
    • Handle: RePEc:cgd:ppaper:287
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cgdev.org/publication/concessional-climate-finance-mdb-architecture-working?utm_source=repec&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=repec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cgd:ppaper:287. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cgdevus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.