This was because when external finance is channelled through country systems, it is disbursed according to the recipient country’s own planning, procurement and accounting systems, and avoids the creation of parallel processes and additional transaction costs. In the lead-up to Busan, the Manila Consensus on Public Financial Management recognised that using country systems can improve the effectiveness of climate finance.13 However, using country systems is not always appropriate, and evidence in developing countries reveals a mixture of donor and recipient preferences from budget support to designated climate funds. Providers commented that budget support was often not a feasible modality to channel climate finance, the reason being that providers need to ensure that financing was being allocated to climate-related objectives and activities, and to monitor impacts.