Search Climate Insights Directory

Between 2010 and 2014, Kiribati received US$30.5 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change objectives, with a majority supporting mitigation. An additional US$81.7 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits. The primary contributors were Australia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Global Environment Facility, with funding concentrated in environmental policy and solar energy.

Between 2010 and 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands received US$7.9 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with the Global Environment Facility and Australia as the primary sources. Mitigation activities received the largest share of this funding (50.8%), followed by adaptation (44.4%).

Between 2010 and 2014, Nauru received US$5.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change objectives, with the largest contributions coming from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Australia, and the European Union. Mitigation activities received the highest share of this funding at 50.7% (US$2.7 million), followed by adaptation at 36.1% (US$1.9 million). The GEF's funding focused on biodiversity, Australia's on environmental research, and the EU's on disaster prevention and preparedness.

Between 2010 and 2014, Niue received US$7.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with the Global Environment Facility and Australia as the primary contributors. Mitigation activities received the largest share of this funding (56.7%), while an additional US$20.9 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits.

Between 2010 and 2014, Papua New Guinea received US$41.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically for climate change, with a majority (60.6%) supporting mitigation. An additional US$147.4 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits. Major donors included Australia, Japan, the European Union, and the Adaptation Fund. From January 2015 to September 2016, further allocations were made via the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (US$25 million), the Global Environment Facility (US$2.84 million), and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (US$3.8 million).

Between 2010 and 2014, the Solomon Islands received US$42.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a primary focus on adaptation. Major contributors included the Global Environment Facility, Japan, and the Adaptation Fund, with funding directed toward disaster prevention, forestry, and water policy. Additionally, the country received US$6.70 million for solar power development between 2015 and 2016.

Between 2010 and 2014, Timor Leste received US$102.5 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a strong emphasis on adaptation and water-related infrastructure. Japan, Australia, and the Least Developed Countries Fund were the primary contributors, focusing on irrigation, water and sanitation, and environmental policy respectively.

Between 2010 and 2014, Tonga received US$67.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a majority (59.7%) supporting mitigation. The primary contributors were Japan and the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), with significant funding directed toward renewable energy and environmental policy. Additionally, Tonga was allocated US$2.64 million from the Global Environment Facility for a renewable energy project between January 2015 and September 2016.

Between 2010 and 2014, Tuvalu received US$37.9 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a significant portion dedicated to renewable energy. Major contributors during this period included New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, and the Global Environment Facility. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Tuvalu was allocated US$36 million from the Green Climate Fund for coastal adaptation and US$2.64 million from the Global Environment Facility for national energy targets.

Between 2010 and 2014, Vanuatu received US$49.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a majority supporting mitigation. The primary sources of this funding were the Global Environment Facility, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates, focusing on environmental policy, renewables, and disaster preparedness. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Vanuatu received further allocations from the Green Climate Fund, the LDCF, and the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program.

Between 2010 and 2014, Fiji received US$32 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with mitigation receiving the largest share (61%). Major contributors included the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Fiji was allocated US$31 million from the Green Climate Fund for water supply and US$3.8 million from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility for REDD+ readiness.

Between 2010 and 2014, Samoa received US$98.2 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with 68.5% dedicated to adaptation and 30% to mitigation. The largest funding sources were the Climate Investment Funds and the Global Environment Facility, with primary sectoral allocations going toward environmental policy, renewable energy, and road transport. Additionally, Samoa was allocated US$6.1 million from the Global Environment Facility between January 2015 and September 2016 for renewable energy system improvements.

The report finds that public finance for REDD+ objectives in Côte d’Ivoire is severely insufficient, with 2015 investments of FCFA 16.8 billion representing a small fraction of the estimated FCFA 173 billion annual need for the 2030 forest cover target. A significant amount of public funding (FCFA 84.2 billion) is classified as 'grey finance'—agricultural intensification that lacks safeguards and may drive deforestation. The analysis highlights critical gaps in national planning, underfunding of land-use planning and land tenure, and institutional weaknesses in agencies like SODEFOR. It argues that 'greening' existing agricultural finance and creating a National REDD+ Fund could significantly increase aligned investment.

The report examines the relationship between policy design and investor behavior in the European renewable energy sector. It argues that a diverse range of investors—from small households to large utilities—can lower the overall cost of capital, but that policy choices (such as the shift from feed-in tariffs to auctions) can either encourage or exclude specific investor groups. The document provides comparative analysis of the UK, Germany, Iberia, and the Nordic region, highlighting how different regulatory environments have led to varying levels of deployment and cost-effectiveness across solar PV, onshore wind, and offshore wind technologies.

The document argues that free pollution permits intended to prevent carbon leakage have instead generated significant windfall profits for Finnish corporations while depriving the government of substantial auctioning revenues.

This report analyzes the potential of the third party financing model to help India reach its target of 40 GW of rooftop solar power by 2022. It identifies high upfront costs, limited debt finance, and perceived performance risks as primary barriers, and proposes specific policy changes and financial instruments to scale the industry, particularly for commercial and industrial consumers.

The document examines the US YieldCo model, which raised $23 billion by mid-2015 but saw valuations crash due to aggressive growth targets that introduced market-correlated risks. It argues that by prioritizing sponsor objectives—such as recycling capital and monetizing undeveloped pipelines—these vehicles sacrificed the low-risk, bond-like characteristics of renewable assets. The authors propose a 'Clean Energy Investment Trust' (CEIT) consisting of a closed set of assets with no growth expectations, which they argue would better align with the needs of institutional investors and lower the overall cost of renewable energy deployment.

The report identifies off-taker risk, primarily driven by the poor financial state of public sector electricity distribution companies (DISCOMs), as a major barrier to foreign investment in India's renewable energy sector. It suggests that existing payment security mechanisms are inadequate and lack transparency. Using a new framework based on credit and financial guarantees, the author estimates that a mechanism for a 750MW solar project should be INR 4160 million, which is nearly three times the size of the existing mechanism for JNNSM Phase 2, Batch 1. The document recommends a more transparent framework to demonstrate risk coverage and long-term structural reforms for DISCOMs.

The report analyzes the investment potential for renewable energy in Germany, concluding that sufficient capital exists to meet government targets provided an appropriate regulatory framework is in place. It emphasizes that a diverse mix of investors—including households, cooperatives, and institutional investors—is essential for cost-efficiency. The analysis highlights that current energy market designs may lead to an increase in negative electricity prices by 2030, which could raise bid prices for onshore wind by 17% if flexibility mechanisms are not introduced. The report recommends predictable auction rounds, de minimis rules for small investors, and inflation-indexed subsidies to lower costs and maintain a broad investor base.

The document argues that China requires 2 trillion to 4 trillion RMB annually for its green transition, with the private sector expected to contribute 85% to 90% of this funding. It identifies two primary barriers to scaling green bonds: the small size of individual green projects, which fails to meet the minimum issuance requirements of institutional investors (typically 100 million to 200 million USD), and the low credit ratings of non-state enterprises and green assets. To address these, the report proposes using green asset-backed securitisation (ABS) to aggregate small projects and decouple asset risk from the issuer's balance sheet. It further recommends standardising green loan contracts, establishing financial warehousing systems, implementing tax incentives to lower financing costs, and utilizing public credit enhancements such as guarantees and insurance to attract institutional capital.