Across the globe, the urgent demands of the climate crisis collide with the promise of vast financial flows. While headline figures suggest momentum, many communities remain sidelined. Headline volumes are rising but the distribution remains skewed. In this article, we explore four pillars: the global landscape and its gaps, the barriers that block local access, evidence for people-centered finance, and the reforms needed to scale community-led solutions.
By centering the voices of those on the frontlines, we can transform climate finance into a tool for empowerment rather than exclusion.
Climate finance has nearly tripled in the past decade, yet it still falls dramatically short of what is required. This section frames the scale of flows, the pledges under international agreements, and the sectoral imbalances that perpetuate social and gender inequities.
Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries pledged US$100 billion per year, a figure now eclipsed by discussions of new goals around US$300 billion annually by 2035. Yet the quality of funds remains problematic: heavy reliance on loans and low share of adaptation persist, and money is not reaching marginalized communities.
This sectoral skew worsens social and gender disparities, as agriculture and land use—critical for rural livelihoods and biodiversity—receive a fraction of the funds.
Cross-border private flows to emerging economies rose from US$19 billion in 2018 to US$42 billion in 2023, yet remain tiny compared to needs. Institutions like the OPEC Fund boosted their climate finance to US$863.7 million in 2024, signaling commitment but underscoring persistent gaps.
Even when climate finance is allocated, locally led socially inclusive adaptation often fails to materialize. Funding pipelines are complex, dominated by international intermediaries and top-down decision making.
Studies reveal that less than one-third of finance to developing countries even mentions local communities. UNEP FI warns that funds rarely touch the frontlines, where climate shocks are felt daily. Top-down structures mean communities lack voice in project design, leading to missed opportunities for adaptation that truly fits local contexts.
Across regions, women in rural areas and informal workers struggle to secure microcredit or insurance. In the United States, Black and other under-represented groups find themselves excluded from clean energy investments, perpetuating cycles of vulnerability and underinvestment.
Gender justice is integral to climate resilience. Financial exclusion deepens risks for women, who shoulder disproportionate burdens of food, water, and care work.
Without decisive action, up to 158 million additional women and girls could fall into poverty by 2050. Financial inclusion initiatives demonstrate a path forward. Women’s World Banking used sex-disaggregated data and women-centered design to extend services to over 91 million women by mid-2025.
In Morocco, collaboration with the central bank produced a climate vulnerability assessment for women farmers, informing new financial products tailored to seasonal income and care responsibilities. Embedding gender lenses in national climate strategies unlocks both adaptation and equity gains.
Ground-level examples reveal the transformative power of community-driven investments. Through public-private partnerships align conservation and livelihoods, local actors manage resources sustainably while reaping economic benefits.
Nigeria and Benin – Shea Value Chain & PACOFIDE: Local women’s cooperatives process shea nuts, cashew, honey, and mangoes. Agroforestry practices boost carbon sequestration, while private sector contracts in cosmetics and food markets channel climate funds into sustainable supply chains.
Tanzania – Mpingo Conservation & Development Initiative: Communities manage endangered African Blackwood forests under certified sustainable schemes. Income from timber sales funds education, health, and further conservation efforts, attracting carbon finance and private investment.
Tanzania – Yaeda Valley Community-Led Conservation: Protecting Hadza ancestral lands, villagers harvest honey and wild fruits sustainably. Carbon offset projects generate revenue for habitat protection and strengthen cultural heritage.
Peru – Alto Mayo Conservation Initiative: A tripartite partnership with local farmers, government, and Starbucks promotes shade-grown coffee that preserves forest cover and sequesters carbon. Purchase agreements incentivize sustainable practices and bolster incomes.
Indonesia – Katingan Mentaya Project: Peatland restoration led by communities restores vital ecosystems and generates verified carbon credits. Revenues flow directly into local development and ecosystem protection, reducing emissions on a large scale.
These cases underscore that, when communities hold decision rights and share in benefits, climate finance yields far greater impact. The challenge remains scaling these models. Practical mechanisms include direct access windows, blended finance facilities, capacity-building funds, participatory governance structures, and gender-responsive budgeting. Simplifying accreditation for local intermediaries and embedding community representatives on governing boards can drive systemic change.
Ultimately, by prioritizing the human factor—centering community voices, gender justice, and local leadership—we can bridge the last mile. Empowered communities not only adapt more effectively but also champion climate solutions that protect people and the planet. The time to reform climate finance is now, unlocking trillions in support of those most vulnerable and ensuring a resilient, equitable future for all.
References
