Search for a command to run...
The Copenhagen Accord provided the first actionable construct to mobilize climate finance by providing a quantitative figure of USD 100 billion and delivery timeline of 2020 (later extended to 2025). The donor-pool claimed that the goal was met in 2022, however, the finance provision has been widely debated for its unsuitable quality that does not meet contextual needs. While any progress towards climate finance provision is praiseworthy, the recipients must assess the assistance received for its alignment with country’s communicated needs and key decisions on climate finance. This article explores the attributes of climate finance committed to Pakistan, a developing and climatically vulnerable economy, heavily reliant on international climate finance to meet its adaptation and mitigation targets. The study uses OECD data on climate finance owing to its comprehensive activity level donor-reporting, coverage of the entire delivery period, and widespread use within global reporting and scholarly investigations concerning climate finance. The assessment finds that USD 12.53 billion in climate finance were committed to Pakistan during 2010-2022, funneled majorly by multilateral institutions, showcasing significant yearly imbalances between adaptation and mitigation proportions, 83% extended as debt, and energy sector attracting most finance while other priority sectors of the country received lesser. The country's assessment highlight a broader pattern whereby climate finance extended is not only insufficient but also burdensome as well as misaligned with the charcteristics mentioned within negotiations. Therefore, inequalities faced in the global South worsen as the sources to build resilience are often lacking and a significant amount of resources repay the debts incurred, ironically, through the provision of climate finance. We argue, that Pakistan models the very recepient for whom climate finance is intended. The country experiences intensifying climatehazards, from floods to heatwaves - yet the resources meant to meet resilience needs are insufficient and contextually non-responsive to needs and priorities - highlighting a classic example of worsening inequalities