The MDB approach to climate finance would benefit from standardized instruments and methods, the sharing of historical financial data, and overall transparency on climate investments.
Improved data sharing, including wider use of the GEMS database.
Harmonize and improve processes to access finance, lowering the burden of time, data, and effort.
Harmonize and improve internal KPIs, including a key focus on the quality and ex-post impact of the finance provided.
No Progress
There is a significant call for more standardization, particularly data from international financial institutions to ease access to climate finance. Aside from the new WB Guarantee Facility, however, little is being done on the issue. A strong stakeholder push is likely required.
Many EMDE FIs find that the data required to inform KPIs, and access climate finance, is difficult to obtain. This is particularly prominent in adaptation finance, as well as in GCF accreditation. Some developed economies are pushing for a harmonization of national taxonomies, while EMDE governments that have created taxonomies that are specifically designed to support their transition state that harmonization would damage their transition efforts.
In October 2024, the GEMs Consortium Database, which draws on data from 26 MDBs, released two reports covering public/private lending and sovereign/sovereign-guaranteed lending, which for the first time included recovery rates in addition to default rates. These reports were in response to criticisms that the available GEMS data was too high-level and lacked the granularity needed to be useful in investment decisions. The G20 and others had called on the GEMS Consortium to provide more usable data to support investment decisions in EMDEs. In 2025, it was announced that the GEMS database will also start collecting information on guarantees, which are notoriously difficult instruments to track.
The MDBs released a new report in September 2025, Comparison Report by the MDBs’ Global Risk and Finance Forum (GRaFF), that provides data around MDBs' financial positions. The goal is to provide greater transparency of information to promote a greater understanding of financial models, and critically to promote mobilization from the private sector.
Cooperation is required between these actors and audiences to drive progress foward in Standardization, Data-Sharing, and Transparency.
Showcasing the key reform milestones for Standardization, Data-Sharing, and Transparency that have been addressed at global events.
Washington DC, US
MDBS, credit rating agencies, and relevant CSOs discuss strategies to align credit rating methodologies with climate and development priorities, improving recognition of MDB-backed projects and reducing the cost of capital for EMDEs.
MDBs agree to explore ways to expand MDBs’ risk-taking capacity to support higher-impact climate, infrastructure, and just transition investments while maintaining financial sustainability.
Washington, DC
The first "MDB Comparison Report" was published in an effort to share metric and data about the MDBs' finacial standing in a standardized way, as requested by the G20 to increase transparency and comparability of the MDBs. The report provides broad strokes comparisons on liquidity, credit ratings, leverage and risk management. The GEMs Consortium released a new report on default and recovery statistics with more granular data than had previously been released. The data indicated that investment risk in EMDEs was lower than commonly perceived.
Heads of MDBs noted on-going coordination on originate-to-share/distribute models in their shared statement, however no MDB made major announcements on plans to launch full scale securitization pilots under OtD framework.
Publications and educational material to deepen understanding of Standardization, Data-Sharing, and Transparency.
Moderate Progress
Moderate Progress
Moderate Progress
No Progress
No Progress
No Progress
Moderate Progress