Enhancing India’s Readiness to Climate Finance

Enhancing India’s readiness to access and deliver international climate finance
3.3 Comparison with peer countries
India has been able to attract large volumes of international public climate finance, and has often
been more successful than its peer countries in securing international funding. Table 3.5 provides an
analysis of the main multilateral funds operating in India, showing that India cumulatively receives
higher disbursements than Brazil, China, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa and Thailand. A comparison
of bilateral climate finance performance between India and its peers yields similar results. Table 3.6
outlines the funding each country received in 2012 using the adaptation and mitigation tags of the
OECD/DAC’s Rio Markers.
Table 3.5: Comparing climate finance access in India’s peer countries
Funding Source 30 India Brazil China Indonesia Mexico South Africa Thailand
CTF 349.91 - - 324 465.09 450 170
GEF 4, 2006-2010 113.67 34.59 135.78 22.4 41.33 18 14.56
GEF 5, 2010-2014 75.23 20.68 107.06 23.03 21.75 16.33 4
ICF (UK) 3.63 56.41 - 23.66 - 1.03 -
ICI (Germany) 52.18 67.23 73.59 23.95 39.68 30.13 29.41
Total: 594.62 178.91 316.43 417.04 567.85 515.49 217.97
Source: Climate Funds Update
All figures in USD millions. Figures are cumulative volumes of funding approved from each fund, 2003-2014 (unless otherwise specified).
Pledges for each of these funds to a given country may be higher as these funds only refer to approved funds. Correspondingly, dispersals
may be lower as individual projects may not yet be at implementation stage.
Table 3.6: Comparison of bilateral climate finance received by India’s peer countries, 2012
Rio Marker India Brazil China Indonesia Mexico South Africa Thailand
Mitigation 594.78 1176.07 289.71 138.16 352.50 204.96 10.80
Adaptation 332.96 47.62 62.22 106.66 23.86 17.89 6.31
Total: 927.74 1223.69 351.93 244.82 376.36 222.85 17.10
Source: OECD StatExtracts Database.
All figures in USD millions. Volumes pertain to flows from all 28 members required to report to the OECD DAC, excluding Japan.
Bilateral climate finance received for mitigation and adaptation in each country refer to the cumulative ‘principal’ and ‘significant’ flows
received, using the OECD’s Rio Marker criteria.
The data from these two tables show that in absolute terms, India received more climate finance from
multilateral climate funds and bilateral assistance than any of its peer countries. While this is an
important finding, there is evidence to suggest that India still needs to improve its ability to access
international climate finance. Figure 3.3 provides data from the Climate Policy Institution, the
International Energy Agency, the World Bank, and Vivid Economics, which shows that – unlike China
and Latin American countries like Brazil – India is not attracting climate finance in sufficient volumes
relative to the country’s future adaptation and mitigation needs. This analysis is consistent with the
CDM analysis and Tables 3.5 and 3.6, which demonstrate that India is not attracting volumes of
climate finance near the estimated $7 billion per year needed to meet the NAPCC’s funding gap.
30 The main funding sources correspond to the main multilateral and bilateral sources of climate finance in
India. The methodology for selecting these funds is detailed in Annex I. The Adaptation Fund is excluded
from Table 3.5 as none of the countries have received any AF finance at the time of writing.
Ref: Ricardo-AEA/R/ED59216/Final Report
16