Introduction

International climate finance flows remain poorly aligned with the scale and intensity of needs in fragile and conflict-affected situations (FCAS). Despite being among the most vulnerable to climate change, these countries continue to receive a disproportionately small share of global climate finance. Available estimates suggest that current flows meet only around one quarter of identified annual climate finance needs up to 2030. In per capita terms, almost all FCAS received less climate finance in 2024 than the median of $20 across least developed countries (LDCs).

Strengthening readiness—the institutional, technical, and governance capacities to plan for, access, manage, deploy, and monitor finance—is a core challenge. Accessing resources requires navigating difficult accreditation processes, meeting fiduciary standards, and complying with extensive monitoring requirements. To date, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) alone has provided approximately $141 million in readiness support to FCAS.

Approach

The study adopted a structured analytical approach covering five dimensions: a review of the FCAS context, an evaluation of readiness diagnostic tools, an analysis of the state of play of capacity-building, the formulation of recommendations, and the application of these insights via case studies. The report draws primarily on in-depth analysis of three countries: Chad, Burkina Faso, and Somalia, supplemented by evidence from South Sudan, Niger, and Yemen. The selection was based on variables including degrees of fragility, climate vulnerability, and levels of human development.

Understanding climate finance readiness

Climate finance readiness refers to the institutional, fiscal, and regulatory foundations required to mobilise and manage resources effectively. The report distinguishes between access-focused readiness and delivery-focused readiness. Access-focused readiness involves the capacities needed to secure finance, such as accreditation and project pipeline development. Delivery-focused readiness (or absorptive capacity) refers to the systems required to ensure finance is spent effectively and accountably, including budget execution, procurement, and fiduciary systems.

Readiness in practice

In Burkina Faso, the climate portfolio has migrated across at least four ministerial configurations since 2022, dissolving technical departments each time. Despite this, the Environmental Intervention Fund (FIE) obtained GCF accreditation in February 2025. However, readiness has often focused on general training rather than in-depth technical skills; in one instance, only one of four technical staff received training on project cycle management.

In Chad, the National Designated Authority (NDA) took seven years to gain full operational status, finally achieving it in November 2023. Frequent leadership turnover meant new officials had to repeatedly relearn GCF procedures. While the GCF committed to mobilise at least $100 million for Chad in early 2026, the country continues to face severe resource constraints where critical sectors like health and education absorb almost all available budget.

In Somalia, the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change (MoECC) had a budgetary allocation of only $1.46 million in 2024 and just 23 permanent employees. Approximately two-thirds of the national budget is funded by donors, and state institutions depend on external support even for salary payments. Trained professionals often leave government service for higher-paying consultancy roles, requiring continuous rebuilding of technical capacity.

Other lessons from FCAS show that in South Sudan, the Ministry of Environment and Forestry received less than 0.05% of the national budget in 2025. In Niger, the military coup of July 2023 shifted spending priorities decisively toward security, leaving limited resources for climate preparation. In Yemen, war-induced economic collapse has stripped the responsible ministry of the resources needed for basic functions.

Findings

The report identifies seven main findings that limit readiness effectiveness. Finding 1 notes that readiness is narrowly framed around fund access and provider-specific procedures. Finding 2 highlights a tendency to prioritise process outputs, such as plans and workshops, over intermediate outcomes like functioning systems. Finding 3 states that readiness programmes assume baseline institutional stability that rarely exists in FCAS.

Finding 4 details how chronic under-resourcing prevents readiness investments from taking root. Finding 5 observes that readiness lacks a basis for choosing which capacities to prioritise in fragile settings. Finding 6 points out that readiness tends to neglect whole-of-government capabilities, focusing instead on small pockets of capacity. Finally, Finding 7 argues that readiness remains disconnected from the wider economic and public financial management (PFM) systems needed to mobilise finance at scale.

Adapting readiness in fragile and conflict-affected situations

Successful readiness should be redefined as a continuous process measured by the capacity to create spaces for discussion, sustain relationships, and adapt to change. The report suggests four principles for providers and countries. Principle 1 is to anchor readiness in political reality by aligning climate objectives with wider national priorities like reconstruction and fiscal management. Principle 2 aims to bridge the access-delivery divide through coordinated whole-of-government engagement.

Principle 3 suggests taking a systems approach to strengthen institutions, focusing on building processes that survive personnel changes rather than just training individuals. This includes using long-term embedded advisors and evaluating if institutions can sustain new functions. Principle 4 recommends reorienting readiness toward core competencies that transfer across multiple financing sources, such as identifying investor-appropriate pathways and developing a national pipeline of 5–10 bankable projects.