News & Analysis Insights & Analysis

Following the Money: Rethinking Financial Power in a Climate-and Conflict-Driven World

One thought has stayed with me after a series of conversations about climate, gender, development finance, and security at key gatherings and policy fora this year—from Climate COP30, to the Berlin Security Conference, speaking at the House of Lords to the World Bank Spring Meetings– is that financial power is central to the influence and success of the climate movement. As a female activist told me recently, “resources must match commitments.”

But we need to rethink our approach to climate finance in a world shaped by accelerating climate shocks, emerging and protracted conflicts, growing distrust between communities and institutions, and risks to peace. There is growing access to financial instruments for women-led and community-based initiatives, from blended concessional finance to community-led savings groups. However, what remains underdeveloped is the strategic intent, expertise, and collective infrastructure to deploy capital and financing in ways that shift underlying systems of power. Closing the gender gap in climate finance requires rethinking power, not just money.

Two parallel narratives must be held together 

In conversations about closing climate financing gaps to  advance global climate finance reforms and sustainable finance for better outcomes for women and girls, there are often two “sides” of the solutions debate. One side of debate focuses on working within existing financial and policy systems to shift how capital is allocated through climate finance mechanisms, blended finance structures, gender-responsive budgeting, and institutional reform. On the other, there is a growing push to build independent, movement-led financial infrastructure that can actually redistribute power, such as community-controlled funds, feminist funds, locally governed intermediaries, and solidarity-based financing models. 

In practice, both of these approaches are valid and necessary. But they should be pursued in tandem, not in competition. Both approaches should be pursued simultaneously and strategically. This dual approach would allow for both the reform of existing financial systems and the development of alternative, movement-led financing models that redistribute power and improve outcomes for women and girls, especially in fragile and conflict affected areas. 

The missing middle: movement infrastructure

There is increasing availability of financial instruments across climate, development, and even conflict response settings, even though this does not necessarily translate into great overall volumes of development finance. In many contexts, official development assistance (ODA) has stagnated or become more constrained, even as financial engineering has expanded. That said, the effectiveness of this dual approach is constrained by the persistent underinvestment in “movement infrastructure.”  This infrastructure looks like an ecosystem of resources, systems, people, and organizations that enable social justice movements to build power, remain climate resilient, and operate effectively. It is this collective ecosystem that translates capital into transformative and sustainable change that reflects people’s lived experiences. 

While there is capacity to engage across both narratives, the limiting factor is underinvestment in the systems, institutions, and intermediaries within the movements that can operationalize this dual approach. Without sustained investment, even the most innovative financing strategies struggle to scale. 

Fragmentation is weakening collective power

Across government, civil society, and finance, fragmentation remains a major barrier in the climate movement. Many actors are working toward similar goals but often in parallel rather than in coordination. This leads to duplication, inefficiency, and missed opportunities to build collective leverage and transformative change. In systems defined by concentrated capital and institutional power, fragmentation directly weakens local bargaining power.

Greater alignment, coordination, and shared strategy across actors is needed as a power-building strategy, one with shared approaches, pooled resources, and coordinated advocacy that can significantly strengthen bargaining power with both public and private actors. The climate community knows this. But scale doesn’t just come from more actors. It comes from coordination that is intentional about harnessing collective power. No single actor can address these issues alone. What is needed is a more intentional ecosystem approach. This includes strengthening linkages across grassroots actors, technical experts, private sector/funders, and policymakers, underpinned by robust gender, climate, and conflict political economy analysis to ensure interventions are context-specific and power-aware.

Outcomes must remain people-centered

As financial strategies to combat climate change become more sophisticated, from carbon pricing mechanisms to blended finance structures, and debt restructuring for climate outcomes,  there is a risk that success becomes defined in technical or financial terms like capital mobilized, instruments deployed, payment triggers. But are women’s lives improving across the board, including for those who experience intersecting forms of marginalization such as Indigenous, LGBTQ+, elderly, and women with disabilities?

In climate, conflict-affected, and structurally unequal contexts, climate financial strategies must be anchored in tangible improvements in livelihoods, resilience, and equity, rather than purely financial or institutional metrics. 

As a female Filipino peacebuilder in Mindanao reflected in 2025, “addressing the root causes of armed conflict, such as poverty, inequality, and climate-related challenges, requires a holistic and inclusive approach. I believe investing in grassroots initiatives, empowering young leaders, and promoting education and economic opportunities can create long-lasting solutions and pave the way for a more peaceful and resilient society.” 

Reframing climate finance as a security intervention

Although “traditional” development aid is contracting, climate funds and innovative finance (DFIs, private sector, venture) have significant capital. As a result, now is a particularly critical time not just to mobilize more finance, but to strengthen the evidence-base for using the financing that remains in more strategic, sustainable, and innovative ways to advance gender, peace, and security outcomes, especially in fragile and conflict-affected settings. In these contexts, how climate finance is designed and delivered can either reduce or exacerbate risks of violence, displacement, and instability, for women and girls, as well as for men and boys. 

This is exactly the gap GIWPS is working to address–reframing climate finance as a security intervention and a tool for peace. Our intention is to build a more practical, grounded understanding of what a security-responsive, WPS-aligned, harm-preventing climate finance model looks like in practice.

This means identifying the conditions, incentives, and structures that enable finance to be conflict-sensitive, locally grounded, and accountable. It means translating women’s lived experiences in climate- and conflict-affected settings into finance-relevant evidence—insights that decision-makers, investors, and policymakers can use to shape how capital is allocated and governed.

Conclusion

What we face is a persistent failure to align that capital with the realities of conflict-affected contexts and the priorities and needs of women in fragile and conflict affected settings. Without that alignment, there is a real risk that climate finance and development investments will continue to bypass, or further undermine the women and communities most central to building climate resilience and sustaining peace. The challenge ahead is not only to mobilize more finance, but to fundamentally rethink how it is governed, who controls it, and whose security it is ultimately designed to serve.

*This article is part of a broader GIWPS series examining gender, climate, and conflict through conversations with practitioners, civil society actors, and local women leaders working on the frontlines of climate insecurity.

Explore More

All News & Analysis