A new International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) paper released at COP30 said that India’s clean‑energy surge, from 18 GW in 2010 to over 190 GW by September 2025, shows how smart policy can mobilise private capital, and sets out how the same approach can mainstream risk analytics to unlock $1. 3 trillion annually by 2035 for adaptation and resilience under the Baku-Belém Roadmap.

Authored by Ritu Bharadwaj, director of climate resilience, finance, loss and damage at IIED, and N. Karthikeyan, a development economist, the paper contends that “resilience can be transformed from a perceived cost into an investable asset if risk analytics are embedded across sovereign finance, development bank operations and private portfolios. ” The report is part of IIED’s COP30 publications and has been showcased at side events in Belém focused on resilience finance, debt sustainability and risk‑informed infrastructure.

“India’s experience shows that clear policy signals and de-risking tools can mobilise private investment at scale, the same approach can work for resilience,” Mr. Karthikeyan said. Global disaster losses hit $320 billion in 2024, with only $140 billion insured, underlining a stubborn protection gap, especially in emerging markets where coverage is thin.

Swiss Re’s 2023 sigma confirms only about 38–40% of catastrophe losses were insured globally, and that insured losses exceeding $100 billion per year are now “the norm,” the paper said. The paper traces a vicious cycle: climate disasters widen fiscal deficits and force new borrowing; that contributes to credit downgrades and higher spreads, shrinking fiscal space for prevention and resilience in the next shock.

Using a synthetic control method, the authors show Grenada’s rating plunged after Hurricane Ivan while a “no‑disaster” counterfactual stayed stable; Belize and Papua New Guinea show similar patterns. By contrast, Fiji’s preparedness helped its rating track at or above the synthetic control after Cyclone Winston, evidence that prevention preserves credit, Ms.

Bharadwaj explained. Beyond debt and ratings, climate shocks hit the exchange rate.

The paper’s regression suggests that a one‑unit rise in climate vulnerability can raise exchange‑rate pressure by approximately 65%; in 2022 alone, average exchange‑related losses reached about $2. 4 billion in SIDS and $11. 6 billion in LDCs, with cumulative losses since 1991 at $27 billion and $68 billion respectively, money that could otherwise build resilience.

With $94 trillion in global infrastructure investment needed by 2040 and $15 trillion still unfunded, designing to historical weather means locking in fragile assets that become liabilities as hazards intensify. The paper calls for probabilistic, multi‑hazard assessment that captures tail‑risk and cascading impacts across systems, far beyond static maps or qualitative screens.

Insurers’ catastrophe (CAT) models and risk engineering simulate thousands of events by combining hazard probabilities, asset exposure and vulnerability functions to generate loss curves and quantify avoided losses from specific measures. Because these tools already underpin underwriting and solvency, their outputs carry credibility with investors and rating agencies, and can be priced into loans, bonds and portfolios.

In five anonymised power‑plant case studies across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, the Pacific and Latin America, annual expected losses (AEL) fell from $48. 6 million to $9. 8 million with resilience upgrades, approximately $10 billion avoided over 20 years; extreme‑event losses dropped by about $177 million per year.

Scaling to the $8. 9 trillion global power sector suggests around $23 billion in cumulative avoided losses over two decades.

AUDI’s flood safeguards in Germany kept production running in 2021 (the paper does not quantify exact savings), while Chennai’s 2015 floods caused ₹ 1,500 crore (approximately $225 million) in downtime; Madrid’s heat strategy contrasts with Paris 2003 (735 deaths; €13. 2 billion losses).

India also appears in an eight‑country comparison with Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Pakistan, Senegal, Uganda. Under a 1‑in‑20‑year shock, 5% loss‑exceedance probability, losses total $21. 4 billion; covering them reactively via humanitarian or social protection would cost approximately $93 billion, while early resilience investments deliver equivalent protection for about $4.

1 billion, around 80% cheaper. The return on investment across contexts is greater than $5 avoided losses per $1 invested.

“By embedding risk analytics across sovereign, multilateral and private investment systems, resilience can move from being underfunded and undervalued to being investable at scale,” Ms. Bharadwaj said, calling for systemic reforms under the Baku-Belém Roadmap.