Follow a 
See our 
View our
Download the
9 February 2026
Bridging Ambition and Delivery: Integrating Urban and Subnational Priorities into Country Platforms
Understanding the Opportunity
As global climate finance discussions gain momentum, country platforms have emerged as a key mechanism for aligning international and national efforts to mobilise finance at scale. Their growing prominence was underscored at COP30, where 13 countries and one region announced plans to develop new platforms.
At their core, country platforms aim to align development partners, national governments, and private investors around shared priorities for financing the green transition. Many countries are already shaping their own versions, from energy transition partnerships to integrated climate investment frameworks. Yet a common challenge persists: how to ensure that these national-level mechanisms translate into real investment and impact at the subnational and city levels.
Why Local Governments Matter — and Why They Struggle to Engage
Across Africa and much of the Global South, local governments are on the frontline of climate action. They are responsible for energy access, waste management, water systems, and infrastructure delivery, the urban services where climate impacts are most visible. However, expecting municipalities to engage in high-level financial systems meaningfully is often unrealistic. Most are designed as service delivery entities, not financial actors. Their day-to-day focus is on keeping lights on, pipes working, and waste collected. For cities, budget cycles are short, capacities are stretched, and long-term investment planning competes with immediate service pressures.
This creates a structural mismatch: national governments and financiers design frameworks assuming capacity and bandwidth that most municipalities simply do not have. Subnational voices are also underrepresented in the design of country platforms, even though implementation ultimately rests with them. If finance is to reach communities, country platforms must evolve from coordination tools into operational systems that channel resources effectively.
A Space for Dialogue
This tension between ambition and delivery formed the basis of a recent dialogue co-hosted by the Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance (CCFLA), UNEP, and ICLEI Africa, which gathered partners from development banks, city networks, national institutions, and technical agencies. The discussion recognised that country platforms are not a single model but a set of evolving approaches, that are tailored to each country’s context — from South Africa’s Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) to Egypt’s Nexus of Water, Food and Energy (NWFE) programme and Brazil’s Climate and Ecological Transformation Investment Platform (BIP). Each seeks to align climate and development finance, but few have yet articulated what it means to integrate urban and subnational priorities within their design.
Participants agreed that while the terminology is still settling, the practical work has already begun.The Integrated National Financing Framework (INFF) is a complementary approach to country platforms. In Zanzibar, Punjab, and Mexico, for example, it is expanding to the state and municipal levels. Across Africa and beyond, governments, DFIs, and city networks are testing how to link local priorities with national systems through decentralised funds, green banks, and development finance intermediaries. These efforts echo the underlying principles of country platforms: alignment, ownership, and collaboration.
From Concept to Practice: Making Systems Work for Cities
A key insight emerging from the discussion is that many countries are working to develop country-wide strategies and systems that connect different levels of governance. Finance tends to flow at the national level, from international partners to national treasuries, but rarely to the local level, where projects are implemented. The missing link lies in building mechanisms that make these transfers predictable, transparent, and efficient.
Many actors can take part in improving this financing by:
- Recognizing and resourcing the “intermediary layer”: development banks, municipal funds, green facilities, and city networks that can aggregate local demand, manage credit risk, and translate national frameworks into investable local projects. These actors are often the only ones with both the reach and the contextual understanding to bridge the gap between policy and implementation. The Local 2030 Coalition, a coalition of 14 UN agencies, highlighted during the dialogue their role in ensuring that localization is central to global financing efforts emerging from the Sevilla Commitment.
- Equally important is financing the “coordination layer”: the data systems, technical assistance, and institutional capacity that enable multi-level collaboration. Without funding for the “plumbing” of governance – how ministries, municipalities, and financiers share data and align incentives, even the best-designed country platform will stall in execution.
From a local perspective, the challenge is not just inclusion, but functional participation. Local and regional governments need visibility in national decision-making, tools to engage, capacity to develop bankable projects, access to data on national pipelines, and platforms for dialogue with financiers. CCFLA’s recently published framework for urban-inclusive country platforms provides a systematic approach to integrating urban and subnational priorities into these plans.
Building this readiness is a shared responsibility:
- National governments can institutionalize subnational participation in country platform governance and create legal frameworks, including a robust regulatory environment and standard tools for direct green investment.
- Development Finance Institutions and Multilateral Development Banks can design subnational windows, credit-enhancement tools, and aggregation mechanisms that make smaller projects investable.
- City networks can act as conveners and amplifiers, linking municipalities across geographies, sharing technical resources, and representing collective city voices in national and global finance dialogues.
- Development partners can provide the technical assistance and support policy coherence needed to connect all these pieces into a single, functioning system.
Next Steps: From Dialogue to Design
Looking ahead, the next step is to translate shared principles into operational guidance. This includes mapping existing intermediaries that can act as local finance channels, documenting successful aggregation and coordination models, and deepening engagement between national governments, DFIs, and local authorities. Three priorities stand out:
- Clarify the institutional architecture. Identify which national, local, and networked institutions are best placed to coordinate finance, and give them clear mandates, resources, and accountability frameworks — document successful aggregation and coordination models.
- Create predictable local financing channels. Establish subnational windows within national funds or work through accredited intermediaries to ensure consistent flows to municipalities.
- Finance coordination and capacity as core investments. The systems that enable cooperation, data transparency, pipeline development, and peer exchange should be treated as essential infrastructure rather than optional overhead.
As the world moves from COP30 to the day-to-day realities of scaling finance for climate and development, the message from this joint dialogue was clear: Country platforms can only succeed if they bridge ambition and delivery — aligning the flow of finance, knowledge, and capacity from national strategies to local action. To achieve this, global partners, national governments, and city networks must work together to design systems that recognize cities not as recipients, but as partners in investment.
