Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates Ghana's export processing zones (EPZs) across economic, environmental, social, and technological dimensions, finding that the current model lacks integration with broader industrial policies and neglects sustainability standards. Key gaps include a lack of low-carbon incentives, minimal technology adoption, and inadequate corruption controls. The author recommends the development of a comprehensive strategic policy by the Ministry of Trade and Industry, the use of public-private partnerships for sustainable infrastructure, and the implementation of carbon finance policies to help Ghana meet climate targets.

The 2022 analysis by Ceres indicates that while half of the S&P 100 companies have lobbied for at least one Paris-aligned climate policy in the last three years, few companies are addressing the obstructive role of their trade associations regarding climate action.

The 2022 Green Central Banking Scorecard evaluates G20 monetary and prudential authorities, finding that most remain insufficiently ambitious in mitigating climate risks. While research and advocacy have improved, the report argues that central banks prioritize analysis over action and are hindered by a commitment to 'market neutrality' and flawed taxonomies. The Banque de France is the top-ranked institution, while Saudi Arabia is the lowest. The report recommends implementing green lending schemes, increasing capital requirements for fossil fuel exposures, and adopting a 'double materiality' framework to account for the financial sector's impact on the environment.

The report applies the AIIB-Amundi Climate Change Investment Framework (CCIF) to evaluate climate-related financial risks and opportunities across sectors, companies, and debt issuers. The analysis reveals a strong focus on climate mitigation and greenhouse gas measurement, but a significant deficiency in climate adaptation planning and implementation. Notably, no analyzed company performed well across all three CCIF objectives: mitigation, adaptation, and financial contribution.

The 2022 Scorecard finds that while insurance for new coal power plants outside China has largely dried up, the industry is only beginning to shift away from oil and gas. Most of the 30 assessed insurers scored poorly on oil and gas policies (1.1/10) compared to coal (3.3/10). The report identifies Allianz as a leader in underwriting policies and SCOR as a leader in divestment, while naming Berkshire Hathaway, Everest Re, PICC, Sinosure, and Starr as laggards. It also criticizes the Net-Zero Insurance Alliance (NZIA) for failing to comply with UN Race to Zero requirements to phase out unabated fossil fuels.

The report analyzes the alignment between three voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs)—the East African Organic Products Standard (EAOPS), the Sustainable Rice Platform (SRP) Standard, and GLOBALG.A.P.—and the agricultural policies of the East African Community (EAC). It focuses on staple crops (beans, maize, rice, and wheat) which are critical for food security and regional trade. The findings indicate strong alignment with climate resilience goals and medium alignment with productivity and trade objectives. Key barriers to scaling VSSs include high certification costs for smallholders, low domestic demand for certified products, and a lack of official political recognition from national standards bureaus. The report recommends that VSS bodies use pilot projects to prove their value and that EAC policy-makers provide targeted financial support and official recognition to integrate these standards into regional trade and development frameworks.

The report analyzes the intersection of voluntary sustainability standards (VSSs) and sustainable finance in eight agricultural commodity sectors. It argues that while VSSs effectively address environmental and social risks—such as deforestation and labor rights—they often lack the rigorous economic and business management criteria that financial service providers (FSPs) require for due diligence. By benchmarking 12 VSSs against sustainable finance frameworks, the document identifies gaps in areas like corruption prevention, economic viability, and climate adaptation. It recommends that VSSs align their criteria with FSP needs, that FSPs develop preferential loan programs for certified farmers, and that governments support land tenure and infrastructure to improve investment readiness.

The GCF is developing its own Environmental and Social Safeguards (ESS) to replace the interim IFC Performance Standards. The proposed framework expands from eight to ten standards, adding dedicated standards for Stakeholder Engagement and Information Disclosure (ESS 9) and Climate Change Resilience and Adaptation (ESS 10). Key updates across all standards include a shift from a 'do-no-harm' to a 'do-good' approach, emphasizing the generation of positive co-benefits, the integration of circular economy principles, and a stronger focus on human rights, gender equality, and intersectionality. The document outlines specific structural and content changes for each standard, including new requirements for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosure, the use of a precautionary approach, and enhanced protections for Indigenous Peoples and vulnerable groups.

The report by Scientists for Global Responsibility (SGR) finds that the Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET) maintains significant financial ties to the arms and fossil fuel sectors through investments, corporate partnerships, and sponsorships. Despite adopting an ESG policy in 2019 and setting a net-zero target for its own operations, the IET has not excluded any asset types from its investments. SGR highlights that the IET invests in funds containing thermal coal, oil sands, and various controversial and nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the IET maintains corporate partnerships with numerous arms companies and fossil fuel giants like BP and Shell. SGR argues these links contradict the IET's stated values of integrity and its goal of 'working to engineer a better world', especially as peers in other scientific and medical fields have moved toward full divestment.

The Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) found that the SAP Pilot Scheme has not significantly accelerated project approvals or simplified requirements for proponents. While the SAP has increased access for African States and Least Developed Countries (LDCs), it has failed to attract Small Island Developing States (SIDS) or the private sector. The median time from concept note submission to Board approval for SAP projects is 365 days, only 8% shorter than comparable regular projects. The IEU recommends developing a formal SAP strategy, simplifying review criteria, and delegating approval authority to the Executive Director.

The report analyzes 2019 emissions data for U.S. onshore oil and gas production, finding that emissions are highly concentrated among a small number of producers and basins. It highlights significant variance in emissions intensity across companies and identifies pneumatic controllers and fuel combustion equipment as primary sources of methane and CO2 emissions, respectively. The analysis also notes that official reported data likely underestimate actual emissions due to the omission of high-emitting abnormal process conditions and facilities below reporting thresholds.

The report finds that while there is broad stakeholder interest and significant latent potential for green projects in Ghana—particularly in renewable energy, green housing, and water infrastructure—the green bond market is currently nascent with no prior issuances. Key barriers include a shallow debt capital market, a lack of formal issuance guidelines, limited technical capacity to identify eligible project pipelines, and a mismatch between issuer and investor expectations regarding pricing. The study suggests that government leadership, such as a sovereign green bond issuance planned for 2021/22, and the development of a dedicated green segment on the Ghana Stock Exchange are critical for catalyzing the market. It also emphasizes the need for credit enhancements and technical assistance to bridge the gap between speculative project ideas and bankable green bonds.

The Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) finds that the GCF's accreditation function is overburdened by contradictory goals and lacks a formal strategy, leading to protracted processing times and a project portfolio heavily skewed toward international entities. While the GCF prioritizes direct access, many direct access entities (DAEs) struggle with capacity and have not successfully accessed funds. The report recommends strengthening the governance of the Accreditation Committee and Panel, establishing clear business standards for processing, and implementing a project-specific assessment approach (PSAA) to improve efficiency.

This case study examines how Rwanda's domestic policy frameworks, tariff structures, and utility restructuring have increased electricity access, using the World Bank's Regulatory Indicators for Sustainable Energy (RISE) index as a benchmarking tool.

The GCF's interim ESS and ESMS are deemed 'not fit for purpose' as they rely on IFC standards that focus on risk mitigation ('do no harm') rather than the GCF's mandate to generate positive climate and social value ('do good'). The evaluation identifies critical gaps in human rights, gender equity, and stakeholder engagement. Operationally, the accreditation process is criticized as a 'desk review exercise' that fails to verify actual implementation capacity, particularly for direct access entities (DAEs). Monitoring is severely limited, relying on AE self-reporting via annual performance reports (APRs) without an operationalized monitoring and accountability framework (MAF). Additionally, the REDD+ pilot programme is found to be inconsistent with the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ due to additional safeguard requirements and a binary 'pass/fail' assessment approach.

The report analyzes seven European Green Capital (EGC) winners—Bristol, Ljubljana, Essen, Nijmegen, Oslo, Lisbon, and Lahti—across 12 environmental domains to establish 'threshold activities' necessary for reaching the EGC finals. Comparing these to Tallinn, the study finds that while Tallinn excels in air quality, green space proportion, and the use of green electricity in municipal buildings, it lags in CO2 emissions per capita, waste landfilling rates, and the formal adoption of strategic planning documents. Key findings highlight the importance of carbon neutrality targets by 2050, integrated sustainable mobility strategies, and the implementation of 'polluter pays' principles in waste management.

The evaluation concludes that the GCF's interim ESS standards, based on IFC Performance Standards, are not fit-for-purpose as they focus on risk mitigation ('do no harm') rather than generating positive environmental and social outcomes ('do good'). Key gaps were identified in human rights, gender equity, and the monitoring of co-benefits. The report finds that the accreditation process is largely a desk review that fails to verify institutional capacity, and the Project Preparation Facility (PPF) suffers from excessive processing times. Monitoring is heavily reliant on AE self-reporting via Annual Performance Reports (APRs) due to the non-operationalization of the Monitoring and Accountability Framework (MAF). Additionally, the REDD+ pilot programme was found to be inconsistent with the Warsaw Framework for REDD+ (WFR) by imposing additional safeguard requirements and a binary pass/fail assessment.

Russia is identified as the second-largest provider of government support to fossil fuels globally, with an annual average of USD 80.9 billion between 2017 and 2019. This support is primarily driven by state-owned enterprise (SOE) investments and tax expenditures for oil and gas production. While the country has phased out some property tax exemptions for pipelines, overall tax expenditures for fossil fuels rose 79% compared to 2014–2016 averages. The report notes significant unquantified support via preferential rail tariffs for coal and regional programs for Arctic oil and gas, as well as a lack of commitment to G20 peer reviews on subsidies.

The Union of Concerned Scientists' 2018 Climate Accountability Scorecard Appendix C evaluates fossil fuel companies based on their commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, use of internal carbon pricing, and transparency in reporting. The assessment finds that most companies, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Peabody Energy, have insufficient plans aligned with the Paris Agreement. While some companies like BP and Royal Dutch Shell have implemented internal carbon prices of $40 per tonne, the report highlights a general lack of comprehensive, company-wide net-zero targets and detailed disclosure of low-carbon research and development investments.

The document introduces a study that applies the Planetary Boundaries framework—which sets quantitative limits on human perturbation of Earth system processes to avoid irreversible environmental change—to the EU-28. It specifically focuses on disaggregating and benchmarking boundaries for climate change, biosphere integrity, land systems change, freshwater use, biogeochemical flows, and novel entities.