The report shifts the climate finance debate from how much money to how it flows
When Brazil’s Ministry of Finance released the COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers Report on Wednesday, it didn’t sound like another diplomatic exercise. It reads like a climate finance manual.
The report marks a shift from negotiating money to designing systems. Instead of debating how much, it focuses on how — through structural reforms that could make future pledges usable, traceable and fair. Prepared in support of the COP30 Presidency, the report lays the groundwork for the Baku to Belém Roadmap to 1.3 Trillion Dollars — a plan agreed at COP29 to scale up climate finance by 2035.
This “Circle of Finance Ministers” initiative was launched earlier this year by Brazil to convene finance ministries from across developed and developing countries. The group’s purpose: to translate high-level political commitments made in Baku into actionable fiscal, regulatory, and institutional reforms that finance ministries can lead. The report reflects months of consultations with civil society and international organisations, development banks, and research institutions.
The report is built around five priorities:
- Scaling up concessional finance and optimising climate funds.
- Reforming Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs).
- Boosting domestic capacity and investment frameworks.
- Developing scalable, innovative instruments for private capital.
- Strengthening regulatory approaches for climate finance.
Each section sets out the background, key issues and specific recommended actions with indicative timelines. The message is that finance ministries, not just environment ministries, must lead on climate finance delivery.
Concessional finance: The real fault line
The report is blunt about the imbalance in global flows. Global climate finance reached $ 1.9 trillion in 2023, but only around 10% went to developing economies, and less than 5% to adaptation.
That mismatch, it warns, threatens fiscal stability and resilience in vulnerable countries.
It calls for scaling up public- and grant-based resources and “highly concessional finance” – especially for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) — while tripling outflows from climate funds by 2030. But it also admits what practitioners know too well: access to these funds remains “complex, time-consuming, resource-intensive, and unpredictable.”
The recommendation is to simplify access, promote programmatic approaches over scattered projects, and strengthen direct access through local institutions.
That may sound technical, but in practice it’s what separates small grants from system-level change.
MDB reform at the core
MDBs are treated as the core multiplier. With concessional resources stretched and aid budgets flat, MDBs are key actors that’d be able to expand lending at a meaningful scale.
The report supports ongoing reforms to optimise balance sheets, improve capital adequacy, and use guarantees and hybrid instruments more effectively.
What’s new is the push for system-wide coherence: MDBs should function more as a network than as silos. It directly links this to the G20’s roadmap for “Better, Bigger, and More Effective MDBs,” connecting climate finance reform to the larger development finance debate.
Domestic capacity and country platforms
Instead of treating finance as something that arrives externally, the report emphasises domestic readiness. It urges developing countries to create country platforms — investment frameworks aligning national priorities with international finance.
This is not a new idea, but it’s one of the few ways to turn global targets into pipelines of real projects. The document also calls for closer integration of climate goals into fiscal and macroeconomic planning — placing finance ministries at the centre of national transition strategies.
But at the same time, it must be noted that building domestic capacity cannot replace the obligations of developed countries under the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement. Strengthening national systems is essential, but climate finance experts have argued that it should complement, not substitute, the responsibility of those with historical emissions to provide predictable, concessional, and grant-based finance.
Innovation and private capital, but with caution
The report lists a range of financial innovations: rechannelling of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), debt-for-climate swaps, risk insurance schemes, and new sources such as international levies.
It also notes the potential of High-Integrity carbon markets, but only if they are “locally anchored and globally connected,” consistent with national circumstances.
Private finance is presented as complementary, not dominant. The phrasing is deliberate: the goal is to align private investment with country priorities, not replace concessional flows or shift risk to poorer nations. That is a measured change from earlier approaches that treated private finance as a cure-all without safeguards.
Regulation and coherence
The section on regulation ranges from prudential rules to climate disclosures and taxonomies.
Its core message is the need for interoperability between standards, ensuring comparability without enforcing uniformity. For developing economies, interoperability protects policy space, while still giving investors the clarity they seek.
The report also recommends that credit rating agencies and supervisors better integrate climate risk into assessments to avoid penalising climate-vulnerable countries.
A collaborative effort
The report repeatedly clarifies that it is not a negotiated UNFCCC outcome, but a collaborative contribution to inform the Baku to Belém Roadmap.
Yet its consultative scope is unusually wide: finance ministries from over 30 countries, multiple international organizations, and dozens of civil-society and private-sector partners.
Among the acknowledged contributors are research institutions from across regions, including Climate Trends from India, which provided written inputs during consultations on access and governance of climate finance.
It’s a small detail, but it reflects a growing reality: credible Global South expertise is shaping how future finance frameworks are designed, not merely reviewed.
Way forward
The test now is whether these proposals translate into real shifts before 2035 — faster access, greater concessionality for adaptation, and a financial system that doesn’t penalise the vulnerable for being vulnerable.
If that happens, Belém will be remembered not for another promise, but for a blueprint that finally started to work.
About The Author
You may also like
Climate Governance Shows Progress, But Gaps Still Remain 10 yrs After Paris Agreement: Report
US tariffs present India opportunities to develop relations with climate-aligned nations
After Baku, Before Belem: Tasneem Essop on Why Climate Finance Is about Justice
Global 2030 renewable target up by just 2%, two years after COP28 Tripling Pledge
ICJ ruling recognises climate change as existential threat, paves way for future litigation