Purpose of Review

This paper analyses the options to broaden the base of climate finance provided by countries in a mixed-methods review. It (1) reviews Non-Annex II countries’ commitments in international agreements, declarations, and agendas; (2) provides and applies a literature-based review of criteria to identify countries’ responsibilities and capabilities to provide finance; (3) reviews institutional affiliation; and (4) reviews countries’ willingness to provide finance through their contributions to 27 relevant multilateral funds.

Recent Findings

Scaling up climate finance has been a political and operational priority for the UN climate negotiations. However, the Annex II list of countries that commit to support developing countries financially with mitigation and adaptation has hardly changed since 1992. Given countries’ diverse emission pathways and economic development as well as geopolitical dynamics, Annex II is turning into a weakness of the UNFCCC in times when developing countries’ climate finance needs are increasing.

Summary

Our largely qualitative analysis indicates that Eastern European countries, Russia, South Korea, Türkiye, Monaco, and Gulf States (including Saudi Arabia) meet many justifications for further negotiations about the expansion of the climate finance provider base. However, we argue against a continued rigid dichotomy of providers and recipients. We recommend four innovations going forward, including establishing ‘net recipients’ as a third category; this 1) broadens the base; 2) increases climate finance; and 3) could increase effectiveness and cooperation. More research is needed on the role of countries’ vulnerability and debt levels in discussions on climate finance provision.