The current commitment landscape, and finance shortfalls
The first Global Stocktake, a review of collective progress towards the Paris Agreement target of a 1.5ºC limit to warming, shows progress has been made [1]. Warming trajectories have reduced from 4.8ºC to 2.4ºC, though emissions reductions still remain far behind what is necessary [2]. Under this target of 1.5ºC, a framework of national commitments was developed: participating countries have Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which outline ambitious international commitments [3]. Alongside NDCs are National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), which outline domestic adaptation strategies [4].
Limited access to finance means these strategies are failing without resources; previous COP agreements have shortfalls in adaptation and resilience funds [5]. In 2025, The Baku to Belém roadmap set a target to mobilise $1.3 trillion, and source half of these funds from private businesses and financial institutions. This would be a 16-fold increase in current flow of adaptation and resilience funding from these sources [6]. With a supportive regulatory environment and internal incentives, such as a successful CIB, climate investments could increase [7]. This financing gap is not due to lack of available capital, but that climate projects aren’t attractive to investors [5], so cannot access funds. To be seriously considered by international financing sources, project development is necessary [3].
Investors require more detail: project proposals must answer questions on where investments will be made, what energy storage will look like, and more [3]. Reviews of NAPs find them consistently plagued by ambiguities and a lack of coordination [8]. In the UK, NAP3 failed to drive implementation of adaptation plans. From 2023 to 2025, progress was limited, with weak objectives and cross-government coordination, data gaps, and ‘nascent’ financing.
What does the CIB propose?
The Green Climate Fund recommends shifting implementation to country-owned responses with greater scope for cooperation [8]. The CIB does propose stronger national implementation architecture, and strengthened partnerships with development banks, climate funds, and private sector stakeholders [9]. It is not a new mechanism — described as a ‘practical implementation tool’, the CIB aims to build on existing initiatives and systems, and to improve the access of government strategies and underdeveloped projects to private capital and commercial banks [5].
The CIB aims to work alongside existing efforts to channel the global resource flow to developing countries and vulnerable communities, whilst itself maintaining a narrower focus on public and private project investment [3]. Discussions between COP President Murat Kurum and Michael Bloomberg during London Climate Action Week highlighted mobilising private finance as a key focus area, given the increased willingness of corporations to act towards climate resilience for economic stability [3].
The Bridge proposes pipelines for projects to develop existing NDCs and NAPs into structured and detailed project portfolios that meet investor requirements [9]. The use of common appraisal criteria and readiness standards to reduce risk aims to open projects up to investment. As well as detailing environmental benefits, proposals must carry accessible explanations of cost, implementation period, technical feasibility, potential risks and measurable outcomes [3].
How will the investment-to-action pipeline be managed effectively?
Drawing momentum from the Istanbul Climate Summit, the COP presidency stressed the importance of moving from commitments to actions that communities will experience. Finance Minister Mehmet Şimşek called for a shift in ‘the reality of delivery’ [5]. Within the investment landscape, efficiency, transparency and direction of funds are important considerations [1]. The presidency called upon a broader institutional push and greater cooperation of regulators and local financial institutions: financing models, and institutional implementation capacity will be of key importance [3, 5]. The finance deficit is worst in developing countries (excluding China), where getting a loan is more difficult, and borrowing costs are higher [10]. Estimates suggest only 10% of annual climate finance targets are received in these countries, despite being most vulnerable to direct climate impacts [5, 11]. Climate resilience is a funding priority, with a need for immediate practical community support [1].
For the Climate Implementation Bridge to succeed, meaningful institutional coordination will be necessary. Collaborations must be achieved and mutual interests prioritised, with robust data handling and cooperative decision making. The long-term objective is the expansion of the CIB to 2035, regularly tracking progress towards voluntary implementation goals set by policymakers.
