Search Climate Insights Directory

Indonesia requires an estimated USD 125 billion by 2025 to meet its clean energy mix target of 23%. While guarantee instruments can address security gaps, improve risk-return profiles, and increase access to long-term funding, no current guarantee products in the Indonesian market specifically cover the renewable energy sector. The document suggests that a local credit guarantee could rejuvenate the market, though it faces challenges such as competition from corporate guarantees and limited awareness among financial institutions.

The report argues that tokenizing the equity or debt of sustainable infrastructure projects can lower the cost of capital and make these assets more bankable. It identifies key value propositions including reduced underwriting and secondary market fees, enhanced transparency through IoT integration, and the democratization of investment via fractional ownership. However, it notes significant regulatory hurdles regarding security token compliance and technical challenges concerning the reliability of the Ethereum blockchain and the 'oracle problem' of linking on-chain tokens to off-chain physical assets. The document provides examples of Swiss start-ups like Tokenestate, Smart Valor, and Mt Pelerin that are developing security token standards and marketplaces to facilitate this transition.

The report finds that while electricity finance in 20 high-impact countries reached a record USD 36 billion in 2017, it remains far below the USD 51 billion annual requirement for universal household access. Clean cooking finance saw a critical decline, dropping 73 percent in 2017 compared to the 2015-16 period. The analysis highlights a systemic failure to direct funds toward the most vulnerable, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa, and emphasizes the need for innovative financing mechanisms like results-based financing and pay-per-service models to bridge the gap.

The report finds that Madagascar faces significant energy deficits, with grid expansion stagnating at 11.4% since 2010. To reach universal access by 2030, the document argues that a shift toward decentralized solar and mini-grids is essential, requiring a total investment of 2.3 billion dollars for off-grid electricity and improved cooking solutions. Key barriers include the low purchasing power of rural households, a lack of quality standards for solar products, and a heavy reliance on traditional biomass for cooking.

The report finds that while electricity finance reached a record USD 36 billion in 2017, it remains far below the USD 51 billion annual requirement for universal household access, with only one-third benefiting residential users. Clean cooking finance saw a severe decline, dropping 73 percent to USD 32 million in 2017. Sub-Saharan Africa remains critically under-invested, and the report highlights a lack of targeted funding for vulnerable groups, particularly women and displaced persons.

The Chongqing Three Gorges Bank issued a CNY 3 billion (USD 436.9 million) green bond on 27 December 2018 with a three-year tenor. The proceeds are designated for energy saving, pollution prevention, resource conservation and recycling, clean energy, and ecological protection and adaptation. The Climate Bonds Initiative (CBI) included the bond in its database because hydropower accounts for only 3% of total proceeds and other allocations align with the PBoC catalogue and CBI taxonomy, though the bond may be excluded if future reporting shows the actual use of proceeds fails to meet CBI definitions.

The document identifies storage, decentralized renewable energy, feeder roads, and irrigation as the four key infrastructure assets most strongly linked to eliminating hunger. It argues that these assets can be financed through a mix of public subsidies, private capital, and innovative instruments like availability payments and blended capital. The brief emphasizes that physical infrastructure must be complemented by 'intermediate infrastructure'—such as logistics and extension services—and local community participation to ensure long-term viability and social acceptance.

The document examines the potential for African public pension funds and Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) to address an annual infrastructure investment deficit of $130–$170 billion. While these institutional investors possess long-term horizons and substantial assets—such as South Africa's $318 billion retirement fund industry—actual infrastructure investment remains low due to a preference for traditional assets, a lack of bankable project pipelines, and regulatory constraints. The paper analyzes the landscapes of five countries and identifies key barriers, including a shortage of liquid financial instruments and a lack of internal expertise to appraise complex infrastructure risks. It suggests that capacity building, resource pooling, and early engagement between developers and regulators are essential to stimulate institutional appetite for this asset class.

The report argues that credit enhancement is essential for closing the USD 90 trillion global infrastructure deficit and scaling sustainable infrastructure, which is often more expensive to plan and build due to unpriced environmental and social externalities. It identifies key barriers to adoption, including a lack of public sector expertise, misaligned incentive structures at multilateral development banks (MDBs) that favor loans over guarantees, and the administrative complexity of asset recycling under Basel III. The authors suggest that while a Universal Guarantee Facility is being discussed, empowering existing dedicated de-risking agencies and improving collaboration between providers may be more effective. The report also highlights the need for innovation in mitigating currency, refinancing, and legal risks related to environmental and social compliance.

The document argues that Canada remains a significant provider of fossil fuel subsidies among G7 nations, despite some reforms. It details various federal mechanisms of support, including tax deductions for exploration and development, and direct funding for innovation and carbon capture. The report highlights that the apparent decrease in subsidies between 2013 and 2016 was largely due to low oil prices and accounting practices that allow companies to defer tax deductions, rather than a complete elimination of support. It further argues that these subsidies are incompatible with Canada's climate goals and the need for a just transition for workers.

The document analyzes how climate change increases the frequency and intensity of 'billion-dollar' disasters, straining national budgets and widening the 'protection gap'—the difference between total economic losses and insured losses. It details the transition from traditional actuarial science to forward-looking 'cat models' and geospatial modeling to price risk. To address 'tail risks' and the lack of insurability in vulnerable regions, the text highlights alternative mechanisms: catastrophe bonds for capital market risk transfer, microinsurance (parametric insurance) for low-income populations, and sovereign risk pools for multi-country coverage. It also notes the codification of insurance in international frameworks like the Paris Agreement's 'Loss and Damage' pillar and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction.

The report argues that global fossil fuel subsidies, estimated at USD 425 billion in 2015, represent a massive untapped financial resource that could fund universal energy access multiple times over. It contends that untargeted consumption subsidies are often regressive, benefiting wealthier households and potentially hindering energy access by straining utility budgets and encouraging fuel smuggling. The authors propose a 'Remove, Target, and Swap' framework: removing subsidies with no energy access benefit, targeting necessary subsidies toward the poor (e.g., through connection subsidies), and swapping fossil fuel support for investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.

In 2017, Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) reached a record $35.2 billion in climate finance commitments, with all six banks increasing their contributions. However, the report identifies critical gaps: adaptation finance grew slower than mitigation, private investment mobilization remains below 2015 levels, and vulnerable nations like SIDS and LDCs received only 10.5% of total funding. Additionally, the author notes a lack of transparency regarding project-level data and the need for MDBs to align their entire portfolios with the Paris Agreement.

The report examines seven international examples of soil remediation financing, ranging from federal programs like the US Superfund to private equity funds like Ginkgo Fund I. It identifies that while the 'polluter pays' principle is a common legal baseline, its implementation varies, often requiring public grants or innovative funds to bridge funding gaps. Key findings highlight that urban sites with high redevelopment potential are more likely to attract private investment, whereas rural or highly toxic sites often rely on general fiscal revenue or industry-wide voluntary funds. The report concludes that there is no uniform approach to financing, and the choice of instrument must be fit-for-purpose based on the site's socioeconomic context and revenue potential.

The document highlights Cambodia's efforts to integrate adaptation priorities into national programs through public finance, emphasizing the importance of political leadership and the need for better monitoring and evaluation frameworks. While domestic funding has increased, the report notes that a lack of finance remains a critical barrier and that international climate finance continues to be essential for the implementation of the National Adaptation Plan.

The report finds that total 'green finance' for forest emissions reduction (roughly USD 20 billion since 2010) is insufficient and vastly outweighed by 'grey finance'—investments and subsidies that potentially drive deforestation—which totals USD 777 billion. While there is growth in impact investment and results-based REDD+ payments, the report argues that a dramatic shift away from traditional investments in deforestation drivers is required to achieve zero deforestation.

The report identifies a $895 billion climate-aligned bond universe, consisting of $221 billion in labelled green bonds and $674 billion in unlabelled bonds from pure-play issuers. Transport and energy are the dominant themes, with rail infrastructure being a primary driver. The document highlights the growing role of sovereign and sub-sovereign issuers, particularly in China and the US, and advocates for the green bond market to reach $1 trillion in annual issuance by 2020 to meet Paris Agreement targets.

The CAMBio II programme, implemented by the Central American Bank for Economic Integration (CABEI), focuses on enhancing the climate resilience of agricultural MSMEs in Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, and the Dominican Republic. The initiative employs a three-pronged approach: providing innovative financial mechanisms through intermediary financial institutions (IFIs), offering capacity building and technical assistance, and implementing an incentive scheme called 'Adapt-Award' to promote ecosystem-based adaptation. The programme leverages a Global Credit Line (GCL) to distribute loans for sustainable resource management. A previous iteration of the project (CAMBio) demonstrated that while financial intermediation is successful, reaching the most vulnerable small-scale farmers remains a challenge due to conservative banking practices and high perceived risks in rural areas.

The report finds that current finance flows for decentralized energy access are insufficient to meet national targets, with a particularly severe gap in the clean cooking sector. While enterprises in Kenya and Bangladesh show some success through PAYGO models and local currency debt, most others rely heavily on equity and grants. Key barriers include high collateral requirements, currency volatility, and a lack of local debt for SMEs.

The briefing argues that ISDS mechanisms in trade deals like RCEP undermine the right of Asian governments to regulate in the public interest by allowing foreign investors to sue states in private tribunals. It highlights that 50 known cases against 11 RCEP countries have resulted in claims totaling at least 31 billion USD, with 67% of resolved cases favoring investors. The document warns that RCEP could 'lock in' these dangerous provisions, making them harder to reform than bilateral treaties.