ENA’s analysis of financial support for clean cooking across the world’s 100 clean cooking access-deficit countries shows that investment between 2022 and 2024 remains far below what is needed. The report estimates that public financing ranged from a confirmed minimum of USD 400 million to a possible maximum of USD 2.8 billion, with a more likely or “probable” level of around USD 1.3 billion. These figures illustrate both the scale of uncertainty in current tracking systems and the limited amount of clearly identified finance flowing into clean cooking compared with the much larger investment needs.
The report distinguishes between three levels of investment estimates. The “proven” estimate of USD 400 million represents the most reliable baseline and is based on directly verified data from 32 countries. This includes USD 385 million reported through IRENA’s survey of 23 Global South governments and an additional USD 18 million in targeted OECD DAC support for clean cooking appliance manufacturing across nine other countries. This figure is intentionally conservative, focusing only on clearly tracked and confirmed public sector finance linked directly to clean cooking initiatives.
The “probable” estimate of USD 1.3 billion is derived by extrapolating the proven USD 400 million across all 100 access-deficit countries. This provides a cautious middle-ground estimate that is broader than the proven figure but still grounded in direct evidence rather than assumptions about wider sector commitments. At the upper end, the “possible” estimate of USD 2.8 billion is based on OECD DAC data covering broader energy and development projects where clean cooking may be included but is not separately identified. Because these projects are not explicitly tagged for clean cooking, this number should be seen as a high-end approximation rather than a confirmed total.
A central finding of the report is that domestic public budgets currently form the backbone of proven clean cooking finance. Government-reported spending accounted for 96 percent of the USD 400 million proven estimate, with about two-thirds of that coming directly from national budgets. This shows that, despite frequent emphasis on international support, national governments in the Global South are currently providing most of the directly verified public investment in clean cooking. However, the report also notes that governments themselves still view external finance as more important than self-funding for achieving universal access goals.
Liquefied petroleum gas infrastructure emerged as the leading recipient of proven clean cooking investment. Around 65 percent of government-reported finance went toward LPG infrastructure, while improved biomass cookstoves accounted for about 32 percent. This highlights the continued importance of transitional solutions in many national clean cooking strategies. Survey responses further showed that more than half of the countries supported specific clean-cooking-related activities through national budgets during 2022–2024, and where technologies were identified, LPG was the most frequently mentioned, followed closely by improved biomass stoves.
The report also finds that official development assistance grants dominate the broader landscape of verified public development finance. In the larger pool of possible investment flows captured through OECD DAC data, grants made up a significant share, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia, which received the largest portion of tracked ODA support. Even in the smaller proven OECD DAC clean-cooking-tagged investments, grants were a major source of funding. This suggests that concessional public finance remains a crucial part of the international support structure for clean cooking, especially where private capital remains limited.
Governments surveyed by IRENA emphasized that stronger domestic policy frameworks are essential for attracting more international and private investment. More than one-third of respondents said that stable and progressive national policies would be the most effective way to encourage private sector participation and foreign direct investment. These frameworks are seen as critical because they provide long-term certainty for investors and help align national clean cooking priorities with international financial flows. Nearly one-third of respondents also highlighted the importance of grants and concessional loans in reducing investment risks and unlocking private capital.
At the same time, the report underlines that tracking clean cooking finance remains methodologically difficult. Three persistent barriers are identified: unclear definitions of what qualifies as clean cooking investment, the wide range of stakeholders involved, and fragmented or uncoordinated data collection systems. Because clean cooking is often embedded within broader energy, health, or development programmes, it is frequently not separately identified in reporting systems. This makes it difficult to produce precise and comparable figures across countries and institutions.
IRENA’s first attempt to collect primary data from Global South governments also revealed practical limitations, including low survey response rates and confidentiality constraints that prevented naming countries in the findings. Another issue was the mismatch in reporting periods: the government survey covered 2022–2024, while the latest available OECD DAC data only extended through 2023. The report notes that future efforts will need to better synchronize these timeframes. It also acknowledges that combining three years of data into one reporting period reduced burden on respondents but made it harder to adjust for inflation or convert the figures into a consistent base year, especially given the high inflation many countries experienced during this period.
Overall, the report concludes that while some financial support for clean cooking is clearly being mobilized, current investment levels remain limited, unevenly tracked, and far below the scale required to close the access gap. Domestic governments are carrying much of the proven burden, particularly through support for LPG and other transitional solutions, but they continue to see international grants and concessional finance as essential for scaling up progress. The findings also make clear that better definitions, stronger reporting systems, and more coordinated tracking methods will be critical for understanding where money is flowing and how to mobilize significantly more finance in the years ahead.
