This chapter provides an analysis of climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries for developing countries broken down by regions1, recipient countries, and country income groups. The analysis includes views on distribution by total volume as well as per capita. Annex C provides a full list of recipient countries and territories considered in this report.
Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2013-18
Climate Finance and the USD 100 Billion Goal
Asia was by far the main beneficiary region of climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries in 2016-18, with USD 30.1 billion (43%) per year on average, followed by Africa (USD 17.3 billion; 25%) and Americas (USD 12 billion; 17%). Non-EU/EEA Europe benefitted from USD 2.4 billion (4%) and Oceania from USD 0.5 billion (1%) per year on average (Figure 2.1). Looking across the three years, regional allocation of climate finance appears stable on a year-by-year basis. One-tenth of climate finance provided and mobilised over the three years (USD 7.1 billion per year on average) was, at the point of reporting, unspecified by region or targeted multiple countries in different regions (See Annex B for further details on this methodological limitation).
Note: The regions cover only developing countries as defined in Annex C.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD.
At a sub-regional level (Figure 2.2), it can be observed that during 2016-18:
In Asia, climate finance mostly targeted South Asia (USD 12.5 billion; 18% of total climate finance per year on average) and East Asia (USD 9.1 billion; 13%). Central Asia (USD 1.9 billion; 3%).
In Africa, climate finance was predominantly allocated to Eastern (USD 4.8 billion; 7%), Northern (USD 4.1 billion, 6%), and Western Africa (USD 3.3. billion; 5%). Central Africa (USD 1.1. billion) and Southern Africa (USD 0.8 billion) benefitted from 3% combined.
In Americas, climate finance was mainly directed to South America (USD 8.5 billion; 12%), followed by Central America (USD 2.3 billion; 3%) and the Caribbean (USD 0.7 billion; 1%).
Note: The regions cover only developing countries as defined in Annex C.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD.
Regions and sub-regions with relatively low populations benefitted from the highest amounts of climate finance per capita over 2016-18 (Figure 2.3), especially in the case for Oceania (USD 47 per capita for a population of 11 million), developing countries in Europe (USD 31.3 per capita for a population of 78 million), and the Central Asia sub-region (USD 21.2 per capita for a population of 88 million). Other sub-regions with high per capita receipts include Northern Africa (USD 21.6 for a population of 192 million) and South America (USD 20.2 for a population of 419 million).
In contrast, highly populated regions, especially East Asia (population of 2.1 billion) and South Asia (population of 1.9 billion), were allocated the lowest amounts per capita (USD 4.3 and 6.8, respectively) per year on average during 2016-18. Sub‑Sahara Africa, in its entirety (population 1.1 billion) benefitted from USD 9.5 per capita but with significant variations at a sub-regional level. For example, Southern Africa (population of 64.8 million) received USD 12.5 per capita, whereas Central Africa (population of 164 million) only USD 6.4 per capita.
Note: The regions cover only developing countries as defined in Annex C.
Source: based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. Population data: (UN DESA, 2019[11]) complemented with (EUROSTAT, 2019[12]).
Over 2016-18, on average per year, out of the USD 55.2 billion was allocable by country (79% of the annual average climate finance total). The remaining USD 14.3 billion (21%) was reported as having a broader, regional scope, and could therefore not be allocated by income group.
As illustrated in Figure 2.4, middle-income countries were the primary recipients of climate finance in 2016‑18. On on average per year USD 28.1 billion (40% of the total) targeted lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) and USD 19.9 billion (29%) upper-middle-income countries (UMICs). Low-income countries (LICs) accounted for USD 5.4 billion (8%). High-income countries (HICs) within the scope of “developing countries” considered in the analysis (see Annex C) accounted for USD 1.7 billion (2%). Further, Figure 2.4 illustrates a difference in focus between the different components that underpin the figures. While bilateral public climate finance strongly focused on LMICs, multilateral public climate finance and mobilised private finance are more evenly spread between LMICs and UMICs.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. For income groups: (World Bank, 2020[13]), complemented with (OECD, 2020[14]) for territories not classified by the World Bank.
The climate focus of total climate finance provided and mobilised within individual income groups was fairly stable over the three years. Figure 2.5 shows that the higher the recipient country income level, the higher the share of climate finance targeting mitigation, and the lower the share of climate finance targeting adaptation. Indeed, in 2016-18, 92% of finance allocated to the limited number of HICs considered within the scope of the analysis targeted mitigation; only 7% targeted adaptation objectives. In contrast, the shares of mitigation and adaptation finance for LICs were almost equal at 46% and 44%, respectively.
Note: Only climate finance allocated to individual developing countries (79% of the total over 2016-18) is included in this chart.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. For income groups: (World Bank, 2020[13]), complemented with (OECD, 2020[14]) for territories not classified by the World Bank.
A correlation can also be observed between financial instruments and income group in the context of public bilateral and multilateral public finance (Figure 2.6). The higher the income of the recipient country, the lower the share of grants, and the higher the share of loans. While developed country public finance for the HICs was clearly dominated by loans (96%), grants played the most important role in the LICs (42%). In MICs, most of public climate finance was provided through loans (88% in UMICs and 89% in LMICs), while grants accounted for 10% in both groups. Equity investments were mostly used in UMICs (1.4%).
Note: Only climate finance allocated to individual developing countries (79% of the total over 2016-18) is included in this chart.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. For income groups: (World Bank, 2020[13]), complemented with (OECD, 2020[14]) for territories not classified by the World.
Regarding the sectoral distribution of climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries for developing countries in 2016‑18 (Figure 2.7), energy was the largest sector across all income groups. Its share, however, increased significantly with income level, from 34% in LICs to 75% in HICs. Agriculture, forestry and fishing were targeted to the greatest extent in LICs (18%) and LMICs (11%) but almost not in UMICs (4%) and HICs (1%). Transport and storage benefitted from the largest share in LMICs (25%). Water and sanitation reached about 10% across LICs, LMICs and HICs.
Note: Only climate finance allocated to individual developing countries (79% of the total over 2016-18) is included in this chart.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. For income groups: (World Bank, 2020[13]), complemented with (OECD, 2020[14]) for territories not classified by the World Bank.
Many large and highly populated middle-income developing countries were the primary beneficiaries of climate finance provided and mobilised in 2016-18 (Figure 2.8). Further, all developing countries which benefitted from climate finance of over USD 1 billion per year on average in 2016-18 were MICs (LMICs or UMICs). The average yearly amounts by individual MICs varied considerably, whereas most LICs were allocated an average of USD 50‑300 million per year. Most SIDS (see Box 2.1) and HICs benefitted from the lowest amounts of climate finance (see also Figure 2.10).
Note: Only climate finance allocated to individual developing countries (79% of the total over 2016-18) is included in this visual. Climate finance not allocable by country amounted to a USD 14.3 billion per year on average over 2016-18.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. Population data: (UN DESA, 2019[11]) complemented with (EUROSTAT, 2019[12]).
An analysis by country per capita of climate finance provided and mobilised in 2016-18 offers a different picture. Typically, countries and territories with the highest receipts per capita included SIDS and countries with a relatively low population (Figure 2.9 and Figure 2.10). Twenty-one of the top 25 recipients per capita included SIDS in Oceania, the Caribbean, and Africa. The remaining four recipients are countries with less than 10 million inhabitants. These top 25 countries and territories benefitted from more than USD 69 per capita per year on average. In contrast, LICs received, on average, less than USD 15 per capita. Countries and territories with the lowest per capita receipts included HICs primarily in the Middle East and conflict-affected MICs and LICs.
Considering adaptation and mitigation finance separately, the following insights can be drawn:
The main per capita beneficiaries of adaptation finance remain SIDS and countries with a population below 10 million. The list of top 20 adaptation finance recipients per capita includes 18 SIDS, all of which were allocated over USD 25 per capita of adaptation finance. Further, 42 of top 50 recipients of adaptation climate finance per capita were countries with a population below 10 million, six with a population of 10-20 million and two with a population above 20 million.
The main per capita recipients of mitigation finance included a wider range of countries. While over half of the top 20 per capita beneficiaries of mitigation finance were SIDS, the list also included seven other countries with a population below 10 million. In contrast to adaptation finance, the list of top 50 per capita recipients of mitigation finance included 13 countries of a population above 10 million, five of which above 40 million.
Note: Only climate finance allocated to individual a countries (79% of the total over 2016-18) is included in this visual.
Source: based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. Population data: (UN DESA, 2019[11]) complemented with (EUROSTAT, 2019[12]).
In addition, Figure 2.10 displays climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries for individual developing countries and territories (anonymised) per year on average during 2016-18, organised by income level. SIDS represent the majority of countries and territories with the lowest amounts of climate finance in absolute terms (primarily below USD 100 million), but the highest amounts on a per capita basis (mainly USD 100 and higher). Further, climate finance allocated to individual LDCs shows significant differences ranging between USD 10 million and USD 1 billion in absolute terms but was concentrated around USD 10 on a per capita basis. Overall, Figure 2.10 also suggests that the higher the income level of the recipient, the lower the amounts allocated. On a per-capita basis, a similar trend is less obvious to identify, although most MICs benefitted from between USD 10 to 100 per capita.
Note: Only climate finance allocated to individual developing countries (79% of the total over 2016-18) is included in this visual.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. GNI per capita data: World Bank.
From 2016 to 2018, climate finance provided and mobilised for both LDCs and SIDS doubled to reach USD 12 billion and USD 2 billion (Figure 2.10) respectively. In the context of total climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries in 2016-18, financing for LDCs and SIDS represented 14% and 2%, respectively. Since these two country groupings overlap, these figures cannot be added up.
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. For SIDS: (UN-OHRLLS, 2020[15]), for LDCs: (UN-OHRLLS, 2020[16]).
Climate finance for both LDCs and SIDS was focused on adaptation objectives (41% and 39% respectively). The share of grants in public climate finance for both groupings (49% for SIDS and 33% LDCs) was higher than the trends observed for climate finance provided and mobilised to all developing countries (19%).
Source: Based on Biennial Reports to the UNFCCC, OECD Development Assistance Committee statistics, OECD Export Credit Group statistics, as well as complementary reporting to the OECD. For SIDS: (UN-OHRLLS, 2020[15]), For LDCs: (UN-OHRLLS, 2020[16]).
The proportion represented by the energy sector and transport and storage sector was somewhat lower in the LDCs and SIDS (45% and 41%) than for all developing countries (see Section 1.4), mainly in favour of water and sanitation and other social infrastructure, which together accounted for 13% in SIDS and 17% in LDCs. Agriculture, forestry and fishing accounted for 17% of climate finance provided and mobilised by developed countries for the LDCs and 11% for the SIDS.
← 1. Although the regions identified often group countries and territories sharing certain attributes, they differ significantly in terms of size, population, income, GNI, and other statistical categories. As a result, such regions should only be viewed as a tool that facilitates geographic analyses. See Annex C for further information.