A Specialized Guarantee Facility for Industrial Decarbonization: The Case for a Dedicated, Pooled Risk-Sharing Instrument
This blog was originally published on Illuminem, and has been co-authored with Rhian-Mari Thomas. She is the CEO...
Financing Climate & Sustainable Development
Synthesizing insights from interviews with over 30 senior practitioners and experts across multilateral development banks (MDBs), development finance institutions (DFIs), export credit agencies (ECAs), institutional investors, guarantee providers, and development policy researchers conducted between October 2025 and March 2026.
The so-called “guarantee gap”—the perceived shortage of guarantee instruments relative to the volume of private investment needed to achieve climate goals—is often misdiagnosed. Interviews with practitioners, guarantors, investors, and deal arrangers point less to undersupply than to misalignment: existing instruments cluster where catalytic impact is lowest, not where it is greatest.
Key Findings
The findings draw on interviews with over 30 senior practitioners and experts across multilateral development banks (MDBs), development finance institutions (DFIs), export credit agencies (ECAs), institutional investors, guarantee providers, and development policy researchers conducted between October 2025 and March 2026. The briefing, supported by the Environment Defense Fund, suggests that supply is not the binding constraint: rather, existing instruments remain insufficiently aligned with the risk profiles and contexts where catalytic impact is greatest.
Document