Moderator: 

• Tara Clerkin, Director of Climate Resilience Research and Innovation, International Rescue Committee (IRC)

Panelists:

• Dr. Tawanda Mutasah, Vice President, Global Partnerships and Impact, Oxfam America
• Laura Folt, Program Manager, Trafigura Foundation
• Kavita Suthar, Director, Private Sector Facility, Green Climate Fund (GCF)

Tara Clerkin, International Rescue Committee: began the session by outlining how climate and conflict interact as “crisis multipliers,” increasingly trapping vulnerable communities in a state of perpetual humanitarian emergency. Drawing on IRC’s internal data, she highlighted that people in conflict-affected countries are facing a 185% increase in climate hazard exposure compared to a decade ago.

Yet, these areas are frequently deemed ineligible for climate finance due to their “risk profile.” The result? Acute humanitarian needs are met with short-term relief while long-term climate resilience continues to erode. Clerkin argued for a dual approach: responding to immediate shocks while simultaneously rebuilding systems to withstand future risks. She emphasised the importance of anticipatory action using forecasting and vulnerability mapping, as well as targeted support for systems like seed resilience in degraded contexts. She called for blended finance that integrates grant capital with rapid response tools like disaster risk financing. Her key challenge to funders was pointed: “We are not in the business of ending conflict – but we do operate in that reality. Climate finance must be redesigned for that.”

Dr. Tawanda Mutasah, Oxfam America: delivered a powerful intervention, framing the climate crisis as one of deep inequality. “This is not a technical problem. This is a moral and political failure,” he stated. Drawing on Oxfam’s analysis of climate finance flows from 2019–2020, he pointed out that per capita climate finance in fragile states averages just $6.68 — compared to $22.77 in non-fragile contexts. Moreover, more than half of the finance delivered to fragile states comes in the form of loans, often non-concessional. Mutasah warned that the financial architecture is reinforcing inequality by pushing poor and conflict-affected countries further into debt. “We are watching climate injustice being embedded into global finance,” he declared.

He also called for localization, urging donors to channel at least 70% of climate finance to grassroots organizations – particularly women-led groups – who are on the frontlines of climate resilience. “We need to stop treating climate finance as if it were neutral – it is embedded in power, and that power must be challenged.”

Laura Folt, Trafigura Foundation: Speaking from the perspective of a private philanthropic funder, Laura Folt offered insight into the structural barriers to adaptation finance. She cited three: insufficient funding overall for adaptation; fragmentation across humanitarian, development, and peace sectors; and persistent misperceptions of risk in fragile contexts.

“Risk is not something inherent to these places – it’s a projection. And that projection is shaped far away from the communities it judges,” she said. Folt acknowledged that small, community-led projects often cannot absorb large-scale investment, but emphasised that such projects tend to have greater “impact depth.” She advocated for pooled funds and intermediary models that allow capital to flow to localised actors while managing funder expectations for scale and speed. She emphasised the importance of a “mindset shift” – both in how donors perceive impact, and in how partnerships are formed. “The biggest risk we face is inaction,” she concluded.

Kavita Suthar, Green Climate Fund: Representing the world’s largest dedicated climate fund, Kavita Suthar detailed how the GCF aims to be both a patient and risk-tolerant capital provider. She pointed to the GCF’s suite of financial instruments – grants, loans, equity – and its country-driven model as signs of its flexible architecture. But Suthar acknowledged criticisms of bureaucracy and lag times, noting that GCF is working toward a nine-month approval window for new projects. She emphasized that risk in fragile settings must be understood holistically, including economic volatility and governance gaps – not just credit risk. In response to questions about funding grassroots projects, she emphasised GCF’s partnerships with national and subnational implementing entities. “We are not looking to maximize profit. We’re looking to maximise impact,” she said, underscoring the GCF’s role as a concessional capital mobiliser.

Questions and answers:

Q1: How can smaller projects that really work get funded when most donors are looking for scale and speed?

Q2:The private sector is active in fragile states for profit – so is the narrative of ‘risk’ really about instability, or about disinterest?

Q3: If climate finance is supposed to build resilience, why are the most vulnerable countries receiving the least support – and often through loans?

Laura Folt, Trafigura Foundation: responded candidly, admitting that current systems favor larger, more formalised grantees. However, she highlighted the growing interest in pooled funding models and intermediary grant-makers as a path forward. “We need new structures that allow us to partner with smaller actors without overwhelming them,” she said.

Kavita Suthar, GCF: acknowledged that perceived risk often reflects donor unfamiliarity rather than real, quantifiable danger. She emphasized the GCF’s push to support projects through local accredited entities and grant-based instruments that reduce exposure for funders while empowering communities. “Risk is often a question of perspective – and we need to challenge that perspective,” she added.

Dr. Tawanda Mutasah, Oxfam: reiterated that this is not a design flaw – it is a political choice. He framed the disparity as a form of “climate injustice embedded in finance,” where fragile and conflict-affected states are systematically sidelined. He called for grant-based finance, debt relief, and a localization mandate for at least 70% of funds.

This session made clear that without radical changes in how climate finance is designed and delivered, the world’s most vulnerable communities will continue to bear the brunt of a crisis they did not cause. Panelists agreed that the issue is not a lack of tools or ideas, but a lack of political will, systemic courage, and an honest reckoning with global inequality. As one audience member aptly concluded: “We keep piloting justice. Maybe it’s time to institutionalize it.”