The Bangladesh Environmental Lawyers Association (BELA), 350.org South Asia, and Friends of the Earth Asia Pacific (FoE APAC) jointly hosted a high-level side event at the Bangladesh Pavilion at COP30, calling for a clear and justice-based operational definition of climate finance.
The event titled “Toward an Operational Definition of Climate Finance” brought together negotiators, climate finance specialists, civil society leaders, and youth representatives, the discussion underscored the urgent need to end double counting and strengthen transparency, equity, and accountability for countries in the Global South.
Climate finance remains one of the most politically contested areas in the UNFCCC negotiations.
Ambiguous definitions and inconsistent accounting practices continue to undermine trust, especially for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) that depend on predictable, new, and additional support. Speakers stressed that without an operational definition, developing countries remain vulnerable to mislabelled finance, inflated reporting, and loan-heavy packages that worsen debt burdens.
Opening the panel, Amanullah Porag, South Asia Mobilisations Coordinator at 350.org, warned that climate finance has become muddled through weak definitions and political manipulation:
“Climate finance has become a diluted issue. It’s ultimately a matter of clarity. Without a proper definition and clear accounting rules, climate finance becomes just another term that big countries can misuse—packaging ODA, false financing, or other flows and presenting them as climate finance.”
From the negotiation perspective, Bareesh Chowdhury, BELA and Bangladesh Negotiator, emphasized that the quality of finance must be central:
“Access and quality of climate finance are the missing links. We need to talk about them much more seriously.”
Brandon Wu, Director of Policy and Campaigns of ActionAid USA highlighted how flawed methodologies—particularly those used by OECD—have distorted climate finance reporting for more than a decade:
The arbitrary USD 100 billion goal created in 2009 became the benchmark. In 2015, OECD claimed USD 64 billion was delivered in 2013, but they counted concessional loans, commercial loans, private finance, and even export credits—politically motivated accounting that overstated their contributions. This became the global standard.”
He added: “Oxfam found at least 54 countries trapped in debt-driven servicing. This is why loans—especially commercial loans—are not the right instrument. Germany delivers 50% of its finance as loans; France too. Only around 12% of development bank finance is actually grants. The Global North is using climate finance channels to generate profit through export credits. This is exactly where we must push back.”
Somaia Abdoun, Natural Resource & Climate Change Expert and LDC Finance Negotiator, stressed the urgency of formalizing a definition that aligns with Paris Agreement obligations: “Defining climate finance is essential for adequacy, proper accounting, and transparency—both for what is provided and what is received. Today we see massive double counting—ODA, migration, displacement, and development aid all being passed off as climate finance. We even see greenwashing in the sources.”
She added: “A clear definition will help assess current and upcoming commitments, especially for the NCQG. What we need now is a clean distinction between climate finance and development finance, with high concessionality for vulnerable countries.”
Mariana Paoli, Global Advocacy Lead at Christian Aid, reminded participants that the definition is fundamentally political: “This is not just a technical definition—we are shaping the narrative. Our biggest demand is for developed countries to deliver public finance. When private finance is included, it must be truly new and additional. But developed countries are still stuck in a ‘Baku hangover,’ refusing to provide any figures toward the USD 1.3 trillion need.”
Dr. Fazle Rabbi Sadeque Khan, climate finance negotiator of Bangladesh underscored the lack of a unified accounting mechanism: “Every country reports different numbers because we lack a proper definition. Unless we define climate finance clearly, ODA and other development flows will continue to be double counted. To rebuild trust, we must eliminate double counting.”
He added: “Adaptation needs are enormous—USD 300 billion—yet adaptation finance is tiny. Only 1–2% of global finance flows through the UNFCCC. Adaptation takes 2–3 times more time and resources, but there is no dedicated fund for LDCs. Quality and trust must now be our priorities.”
Call to Action from Bangladesh’s Economic Relations Division
Closing the event, Additional Secretary AKM Sohel, Chief Guest of the session, stressed the immediate need for clarity:
“We must begin with the operational definition. Without it, everything remains vague. A clear definition will help mobilize support, align activities, and enhance resilience. Funds may be available, but without clarity we risk pushing countries into debt traps—something we must avoid at all costs.”