UN
UNFPA Partnership Catalyst

Climate Finance for SRHR: The Untapped Opportunity

UNFPA-R-07Resilience & PartnershipsWorkingAudience: Both1,959 words

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SRHR is almost entirely absent from climate finance. Despite strong and growing evidence linking climate change to maternal mortality, contraceptive disruption, gender-based violence, and adverse pregnancy outcomes, less than 2% of adaptation funding and 0.5% of multilateral climate funding reaches projects that protect or improve human health — and SRHR is a vanishingly small subset of even that. UNFPA does not hold Green Climate Fund accreditation and has no confirmed GCF-funded project. This document maps the climate finance landscape, identifies the specific entry points where SRHR can access climate funding, and provides the evidence base UNFPA staff need to make the case in meetings with climate-focused funders.

The core argument: climate finance is the largest pool of new development capital being deployed globally, with $137 billion from MDBs alone in 2024. SRHR's absence from this pool is not because the evidence is missing — it is because no major SRHR actor has systematically pursued it. UNFPA is uniquely positioned to change this.


THE CLIMATE FINANCE LANDSCAPE

Scale

Source Amount (2024)
All MDBs — climate finance $137 billion (record; +10% YoY)
MDBs — private climate finance mobilised $134 billion (+33% YoY)
Green Climate Fund — total portfolio $19.3 billion (GCF resources); $78.7B with co-financing; 336 projects
ADB — climate finance (own resources) $11.1 billion
Global blended finance — climate deals (2024) $15.5 billion across 84 deals
East Asia & Pacific blended finance $5 billion (+77% from 2023)
MDB pledge for LMICs by 2030 $120 billion/year (COP29 commitment)
MDB adaptation finance pledge by 2030 $42 billion/year

The Health Gap in Climate Finance

SRHR Specifically


EVIDENCE BASE: WHY CLIMATE FUNDERS SHOULD CARE ABOUT SRHR

Maternal Mortality and Climate

Climate Disasters and SRHR Access

The WHO/HRP Research Agenda (2025)

WHO issued a formal call for research at the climate-SRHR intersection, identifying ten priority questions across four outcome areas: maternal health, GBV, contraception access, and abortion care. The WHO/HRP and UNFPA co-authored scoping review (BMJ Public Health, August 2024) confirmed: extreme temperatures, cyclones, floods, and droughts are associated with reduced birth weight, preterm births, stillbirths, pregnancy complications, and maternal deaths.

NDC Integration

UNFPA's "Taking Stock" global review (with Queen Mary University of London) found that only 34% of countries have integrated SRHR into climate change policies. Five regional companion reports (Asia Pacific, Arab States, East & Southern Africa, Latin America, West & Central Africa) provide country-level data for NDC-focused conversations.


CLIMATE FINANCE ENTRY POINTS FOR UNFPA

Entry Point 1: Green Climate Fund Accreditation

Current status: UNFPA is NOT a GCF Accredited Entity. By contrast, UNDP, UNEP, and WHO are established GCF partners. WHO was specifically approved as a GCF Readiness Delivery Partner.

Pathway A — Direct accreditation: Five-step process under the revised Accreditation Framework (RAF, effective October 2025). Requires fiduciary standards, environmental/social safeguards, and gender policy compliance. GCF aims for 9-month concept-to-approval.

Pathway B — Partner under existing AE: UNFPA could execute projects as a delivery partner under UNDP, WHO, or a regional development bank already accredited. This is faster but gives UNFPA less direct control and recognition.

Pathway C — GCF Readiness grants: Countries and health organisations can access GCF Readiness grants (USD 1–3 million) to develop Health National Adaptation Plans (HNAPs) and build project pipelines. UNFPA could support country offices to access these.

Recommendation for partnership conversations: UNFPA should pursue GCF accreditation as a medium-term strategic objective. In the near term, partnering with WHO (now a GCF Readiness Delivery Partner) on climate-SRHR projects under GCF frameworks is the fastest path.

Entry Point 2: ADB Climate and Health Initiative

ADB launched its Climate and Health Initiative (CHI) at COP28 with dedicated Technical Assistance:

No formal ADB-UNFPA SRHR partnership exists. This is a gap. ADB's CHI explicitly includes "extreme heat/flooding impacts on maternal and reproductive health" in its thematic priorities. A formal MOU between ADB and UNFPA on climate-SRHR would unlock access to ADB's $11.1 billion annual climate finance.

Entry Point 3: COP Process and Belem Health Action Plan

Partnership conversation angle: The BHAP is the first global initiative targeting climate-related health threats with dedicated philanthropic capital. UNFPA should position itself as the SRHR delivery partner of choice for BHAP implementation.

Entry Point 4: Singapore's FAST-P and MAS Green Finance

MAS's FAST-P platform targets $5 billion for Asia climate transition. While currently focused on energy and industrial transition, the architecture (VCC structures, DFI co-investment, concessional capital) is replicable for health/SRHR.

The MAS taxonomy gap: The Singapore-Asia Taxonomy only operationalises climate change mitigation. Climate adaptation, social resilience, and health are flagged as future development. Advocating for MAS to include health/SRHR adaptation in the taxonomy's next phase could unlock labelled sustainable finance instruments for UNFPA-linked investments.

Entry Point 5: National Adaptation Plans (NAPs)

GCF has invested $5.2 million to support 15 countries in developing Health National Adaptation Plans. UNFPA country offices could embed SRHR components into HNAPs, creating a pipeline for larger GCF project proposals.


GENDER LENS INVESTING: A BRIDGE TO SRHR CLIMATE FINANCE

Market Overview

Key Players for UNFPA Conversations

Connecting Gender Lens to Climate

The intersection of gender lens investing and climate finance is growing but nascent. UNFPA's unique contribution: providing the evidence that SRHR outcomes are both gender outcomes and climate resilience outcomes. A gender lens investment in maternal health supply chain resilience, for example, meets both GLI criteria and climate adaptation criteria.


THE UNFPA STRATEGIC PLAN 2026–2029 AND CLIMATE

UNFPA adopted its new Strategic Plan 2026–2029 in July 2025. Climate-relevant features:

MOPAN assessment (2025): Flagged that UNFPA lacks a dedicated, standalone climate change strategy with clear objectives, indicators, and targets. This is a credibility issue in climate finance conversations — funders expect a clear climate results framework.


IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTNERSHIP CONVERSATIONS

The Pitch

"SRHR is the biggest blind spot in climate finance. The evidence linking climate change to maternal mortality, contraceptive disruption, and gender-based violence is clear and growing. Yet less than 2% of adaptation funding reaches health, and SRHR receives essentially zero from climate mechanisms. UNFPA has the mandate, the community-level delivery infrastructure, and the evidence base to change this — but we need partners who understand that climate resilience cannot be built without protecting women's health."

Three Specific Asks for Climate Funders

  1. For GCF/Adaptation Fund: Support UNFPA's pathway to GCF accreditation; in the interim, co-develop SRHR-integrated climate adaptation projects through existing accredited entities (WHO, UNDP, ADB)

  2. For Singapore DFIs/family offices: Structure a VCC-based climate-SRHR resilience vehicle using MAS's 2x blended finance recognition; anchor with Temasek Trust/PAA; co-invest with ADB CHI

  3. For philanthropic foundations: Fund SRHR integration into Health National Adaptation Plans in 5–10 priority Asian countries; this creates the GCF project pipeline that enables larger-scale climate finance access


SOURCES

Evidence quality rating: Strong on climate finance figures (GCF, ADB, MDB official data). Strong on the SRHR gap in climate finance (multiple independent sources confirm). Moderate on causal pathways (epidemiological evidence is moderate; attribution is methodologically difficult). Strong on institutional entry points (GCF accreditation pathways, ADB CHI, BHAP are documented). Weak on proven SRHR-climate finance deal flow (no major precedent exists — this is genuinely frontier territory).

Something wrong or missing?

Flag an error, suggest a correction, or add context.

Send Feedback
← Back to Knowledge Base