Five signals from the OECD Community of Practice on Private Finance for Sustainable Development that every development finance practitioner should be watching.
The numbers are no longer abstract. Official Development Assistance has declined by 23% and is projected to fall by as much as one third as major DAC donors implement spending cuts. Against that backdrop, the OECD Community of Practice on Private Finance for Sustainable Development convened in Paris on 13 May 2026, bringing together senior representatives from Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), OECD member countries, and private sector actors to confront a question that has moved from strategic priority to existential imperative: how do we mobilise private finance at scale, and fast enough to matter?
What follows are five signals from the day that, taken together, tell a coherent story about where development finance stands, and what has to change.
1. The system is stuck in project mode when it needs to operate at a systemic level
The most consistent theme across the day was the gap between what the system knows and what it does. MDBs have recorded the largest absolute increases in private finance mobilised, proof that the model works. Yet the ecosystem continues to operate through isolated, one-off transactions rather than coordinated, replicable approaches. Speakers pointed to misaligned mandates, contradictory political signals, and a fundamental mismatch of accountability frameworks as the structural causes. The concept of ‘industrialising co-financing’, building genuine mutual reliance between institutions rather than ad hoc collaboration, emerged as a compelling framework for what systemic change could look like in practice. Ukraine, where mutual institutional reliance has already been demonstrated under pressure, was cited as a model that should be applied to all partner markets.
2. Development guarantees are the highest-leverage instrument available and the most misused
No single instrument has mobilised more private finance than development guarantees. The session dedicated to the topic was also the most substantive of the day, and revealed a clear consensus: guarantees work, but they are routinely deployed too softly, for too long, and often without the exit discipline that would make them genuinely catalytic. The principle that a guarantee should never be required a second time in the same context, captures the logic well. The InfraCredit experience in Nigeria stands as the clearest proof of concept: a well-structured, market-building guarantee facility that has demonstrably deepened domestic capital markets, and one that is actively working towards the point where guarantees are no longer required. That is what success looks like. The challenge is building the pricing discipline and institutional incentives to replicate it.
3. Data transparency is not a reporting requirement, it is a market-building intervention
The gap between actual and perceived risk in development markets is, in significant part, a data problem. Approximately three quarters of investors report dissatisfaction with the availability and quality of data on development finance instruments, and that dissatisfaction translates directly into capital that stays on the sidelines. Harmonised methodologies, coordinated disclosure, and accessible databases are not administrative improvements. They are the preconditions for a functioning market. The Hamburg Data Alliance and the GEMs database represent meaningful progress, but the community has a collective action challenge at hand.
4. Critical minerals are on the agenda
Less than 1% of ODA and other official flows is currently directed towards critical minerals, despite their centrality to renewable energy expansion and the priorities of OECD member countries. The opportunity for development finance is substantial: entry points exist throughout the value chain, local value addition must be central to any credible strategy, and the most catalytic intervention point for DFIs is prior to a mine reaching bankability, at the feasibility and environmental and social systems stage. The obstacles are real, but they are tractable, and the development finance community has directly relevant expertise in enabling infrastructure, project finance, and standard-setting across supply chains. The case for scaled engagement is compelling.
5. The Global South has changed the terms of engagement
Partner countries in the Global South are no longer receptive to aid-style or solidarity-based approaches. They are seeking genuine investment partnerships, frameworks that attract private capital and build domestic economic capacity, not vehicles for the deployment of concessional finance on terms set elsewhere. This shift in posture changes the nature of what development finance institutions are fundamentally for. The system has not yet fully absorbed it.
The urgency was genuine. Whether the ambition can be translated into solutions that work at the scale the moment demands remains the defining challenge. But the expertise, the instruments, and the institutional will were in the room, and that is not a small thing.
About the Author
Maria-Pia Kelly is Senior Fundraising & Corporate Communications Specialist at Cardano Development, where she has spent over ten years working across business development and corporate communications. Her career in development finance spans roles at GuarantCo, Frontclear, and CreditAccess Asia, giving her direct exposure to the guarantee and capital markets sectors, and private finance mobilisation across emerging and frontier markets.
This thought piece reflects the personal observations of the author and does not attribute views to any individual speaker or institution.
