Analysis Shows China, Saudi Arabia and UAE among Major Recipients of Climate Finance Loans
New data reveals billions in climate-marked public money flowing to wealthy states, raising questions about equity in global climate funding
An investigation by independent analysts has revealed that significant sums of public climate-finance funds intended for vulnerable nations have instead been directed to wealthier countries including China, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
The review of more than 20,000 projects reported in 2021 and 2022 found that China received roughly three billion dollars in climate finance, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE received over one billion dollars in loans earmarked as climate-related support.
According to the data, only about one fifth of the total funding committed in that period reached the world’s 44 least-developed countries (LDCs), and much of this portion was structured as loans rather than grants—raising concerns that already debt-strained nations may face repayment burdens.
The share of loans for some LDCs reached 95 per cent or more, rather than concessionary grants.
Among the high-income recipients, the UAE logged a loan of more than six hundred million dollars from Japan for an offshore electricity transmission project and several hundred million more for a waste-incineration facility.
Saudi Arabia recorded around three hundred and twenty-eight million dollars in loans, including for a state electricity firm and a solar project.
These flows appear in the climate-finance datasets despite the countries’ large fossil-fuel economies and high per-capita incomes.
Analysts warn that the lack of centralised oversight in the climate-finance system allows large donors to allocate funds at their discretion, which may reflect geopolitical or industrial interests rather than vulnerability or adaptation needs.
The study also highlights an emerging tension over the classification of upper-middle-income and even high-income countries as eligible recipients, when their emissions and economic capacity increasingly resemble developed-country profiles.
The findings arrive as global climate-finance discussions gear up for a landmark deal to commit up to three hundred billion dollars annually by 2035 to support lower-income nations.
Proponents argue the current model must shift towards more grants and lower-interest finance, particularly for the poorest countries facing multiple shocks.
One expert observed: “This is not charity — it is a strategic investment that addresses the root causes of many of the crises we see daily.”
The role of China is especially complex: although it is still classified as a “developing” country under United Nations rules, its emissions far exceed many developed economies, and it now both receives and provides climate-related finance.
The survey noted that China’s economy and emissions growth raise questions about how the global funding architecture should evolve.
The revelations of uneven flows and high loan-to-grant ratios for vulnerable regions may complicate international negotiations over the next round of climate-finance commitments, and increase pressure on donor countries to reform reporting, eligibility criteria and the quality of funding offered.
The review of more than 20,000 projects reported in 2021 and 2022 found that China received roughly three billion dollars in climate finance, while Saudi Arabia and the UAE received over one billion dollars in loans earmarked as climate-related support.
According to the data, only about one fifth of the total funding committed in that period reached the world’s 44 least-developed countries (LDCs), and much of this portion was structured as loans rather than grants—raising concerns that already debt-strained nations may face repayment burdens.
The share of loans for some LDCs reached 95 per cent or more, rather than concessionary grants.
Among the high-income recipients, the UAE logged a loan of more than six hundred million dollars from Japan for an offshore electricity transmission project and several hundred million more for a waste-incineration facility.
Saudi Arabia recorded around three hundred and twenty-eight million dollars in loans, including for a state electricity firm and a solar project.
These flows appear in the climate-finance datasets despite the countries’ large fossil-fuel economies and high per-capita incomes.
Analysts warn that the lack of centralised oversight in the climate-finance system allows large donors to allocate funds at their discretion, which may reflect geopolitical or industrial interests rather than vulnerability or adaptation needs.
The study also highlights an emerging tension over the classification of upper-middle-income and even high-income countries as eligible recipients, when their emissions and economic capacity increasingly resemble developed-country profiles.
The findings arrive as global climate-finance discussions gear up for a landmark deal to commit up to three hundred billion dollars annually by 2035 to support lower-income nations.
Proponents argue the current model must shift towards more grants and lower-interest finance, particularly for the poorest countries facing multiple shocks.
One expert observed: “This is not charity — it is a strategic investment that addresses the root causes of many of the crises we see daily.”
The role of China is especially complex: although it is still classified as a “developing” country under United Nations rules, its emissions far exceed many developed economies, and it now both receives and provides climate-related finance.
The survey noted that China’s economy and emissions growth raise questions about how the global funding architecture should evolve.
The revelations of uneven flows and high loan-to-grant ratios for vulnerable regions may complicate international negotiations over the next round of climate-finance commitments, and increase pressure on donor countries to reform reporting, eligibility criteria and the quality of funding offered.
