Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that the Biden administration can reclaim U.S. climate leadership by submitting a robust national climate commitment (NDC) of 45-50% emissions reductions by 2030, increasing financial support for developing countries through the Green Climate Fund and other mechanisms, and integrating climate change as a core foreign policy issue through strategic bilateral and multilateral diplomacy.

The report outlines a framework for Saint Lucia to mobilise domestic and international climate finance to build resilience. It identifies key funding sources, assesses the scale and type of existing project concepts, and defines the roles of government agencies, accredited entities, and the private sector in a cyclical financing process.

The strategy outlines a framework for Saint Lucia to mobilise domestic and international public and private finance to meet its climate adaptation goals. It identifies a current funding gap, noting that while the country has successfully accessed funds from the Adaptation Fund and GCF, many of its project concept notes are small-scale and require consolidation into larger programmes to attract major international donors. The document maps the roles of government ministries, accredited entities, and the private sector in a cyclical financing process involving priority definition, project elaboration, and monitoring.

The document examines the complex climate finance landscape in Kenya, where a wide range of funding sources and a devolved governance model create coordination challenges. It identifies technical barriers such as capacity gaps and fragmented funding, alongside political barriers including a lack of high-level political will and diverging agendas between the government and development partners. The authors argue that while technical measures are necessary, they are insufficient without addressing underlying political priorities and shifting the government's focus to better include bilateral donors, who provide the majority of the country's climate finance.

The document outlines lessons from a dialogue between grassroots organizations and donors on advancing locally led climate adaptation in Africa. It emphasizes the need to shift from top-down to circular decision-making, build mutual trust through transparency, and move away from short-term, projectized funding models. The briefing argues for the integration of development-sector knowledge into climate finance and the reduction of accreditation barriers for local actors. It further advocates for a shift in the 'hierarchy of knowledge' to better value indigenous and local expertise, and calls for more flexible funding that supports long-term agency and administrative costs rather than just direct climate benefits.

The report examines how different climate funds can be combined to achieve results that exceed the capacity of any single mechanism. It identifies several types of synergies, including the scaling up of pilots, continuity of action, and the blending of qualitatively different financial instruments (e.g., grants and loans). The analysis highlights that while convergence of funding is common, synergies are often hindered by administrative misalignments, such as diverging approval processes and time gaps between project phases. Key drivers for success include strong national coordination, the use of country investment plans, and the role of 'local champions' and Direct Access Entities. The report recommends strengthening country-driven investment planning, harmonizing fund procedures, and improving cross-fund information sharing to maximize the effectiveness of climate finance.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement establishes frameworks for international carbon markets, allowing countries to trade emissions reductions to meet their nationally determined contributions (NDCs). While it offers potential cost savings of $250 billion per year by 2030 and can catalyze private finance, poor design risks increasing global emissions through double-counting and a lack of additionality. Key points of contention for negotiators include the application of 'corresponding adjustments' to prevent double-counting, the implementation of 'overall mitigation in global emissions' (OMGE), the 'share of proceeds' for the Adaptation Fund, and the potential carryover of up to 4 billion pre-2020 Kyoto Protocol units.

The document examines the transition from Kyoto-era carbon credits to ITMOs under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, detailing the two primary cooperation avenues (Article 6.2 and 6.4) and the remaining challenges in establishing a rulebook. It categorizes potential project types, analyzes Canada's preparations—including waste sector partnerships in Chile and LNG exports—and highlights the economic potential of Article 6 to reduce NDC implementation costs by half by 2030 if properly regulated to avoid double counting and 'hot air'.

The briefing identifies critical areas for the June 2019 Bonn negotiations, including the design of market-based mechanisms to avoid double-counting, the use of IPCC reports to inform revised nationally determined contributions (NDCs), and the need for effective climate finance. It emphasizes the importance of resourcing the Green Climate Fund and Adaptation Fund, enhancing capacity building through the PCCB and CGE, and defining the future of the Warsaw International Mechanism for loss and damage.

The paper finds that the Adaptation Fund provides limited support for ecosystem-related activities, with only 15% of funding allocated to such projects as of 2016, and most of these focusing on human-centric ecosystem services rather than ecological resilience.

The 2019 Francophone Forum on the NAP process brought together representatives from nine countries to share best practices on integrating the private sector and gender dimensions into climate adaptation and improving direct access to international climate finance. Key outcomes include the identification of barriers to private sector engagement, such as low awareness and lack of incentive frameworks, and gender-related challenges, including cultural barriers and a lack of sex-disaggregated data. The forum also detailed the accreditation processes for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Adaptation Fund (AF), highlighting the importance of scientific vulnerability studies and strong governance for successful funding applications.

The document identifies a "missing middle" in climate finance—a systemic gap where mobilized funds fail to reach local and subnational actors due to bureaucratic barriers, capacity constraints, and a preference for international intermediaries. It argues that the direct access modality is a critical tool for overcoming this gap by empowering national and subnational entities. The authors highlight that while the AF has pioneered direct access, the GCF remains dominated by Multilateral Implementing Entities (MIEs), with only 16% of approved funding channeled through Direct Access Entities (DAEs) as of March 2019. The paper recommends shifting toward a principle of subsidiarity, increasing grant-based financing, and holding MIEs accountable for transferring capacity to national institutions.

The statement evaluates the conclusion of COP24, noting that while negotiations were contentious, they established a foundation for the Paris Agreement's rulebook and set the stage for updated national climate commitments by 2020. It highlights progress on the Adaptation Fund and the agreement to set a new post-2020 finance goal, while criticizing the United States, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait for opposing the IPCC 1.5°C report. The author emphasizes that the world has not yet begun to aggressively reduce global emissions and calls for bold action from heads of state.

The briefing identifies three central pillars for climate finance negotiations at COP24: the replenishment of dedicated funds, the creation of reporting guidelines for tracking financial flows, and the planning of a new collective quantified goal after 2025. It emphasizes the need for developed countries to scale up support, specifically through the Green Climate Fund, and to improve both ex-post reporting of past flows and ex-ante projections of future funding to build trust with developing nations.

The Bangkok Climate Change Conference focused on operationalizing the Paris Agreement through the PAWP, covering mitigation, adaptation, finance, and transparency. While some technical progress was made in streamlining negotiating texts, overall progress was characterized as "uneven," with significant deadlocks remaining over climate finance (Article 9.5) and the principle of differentiation in Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) offers developing countries a one-time grant of up to USD 3 million through its Readiness Programme to support country-driven adaptation activities and catalyze larger investments. To improve the quality of proposals, the GCF Secretariat identifies ten key criteria: clarifying focus (national, sectoral, or local), using country-specific impacts and vulnerabilities rather than templates, building private sector ownership, designing an adaptation investment vision, articulating a 'Theory of Change', avoiding duplication of existing assessments, integrating gender and social dimensions, engaging stakeholders including civil society and sub-national governments, aligning with other funds like the GEF and Adaptation Fund, and utilizing a phased approach for multiple proposals over time.

The briefing proposes the creation of 'America’s Climate Fund,' a nonfederal initiative to mobilize climate finance for low-income and vulnerable nations. While not intended to replace federal obligations or fill the $2 billion gap in Green Climate Fund promises, the fund would signal continued U.S. commitment to the Paris Agreement. The proposal suggests housing the fund in a nonprofit to ensure tax deductibility and political stability, with contributions coming from corporations, philanthropies, and crowdfunding. Disbursal options include direct contributions to multilateral funds like the Adaptation Fund and the Green Climate Fund, or co-financing specific low-carbon and climate-resilient projects.

The guide defines fundamental concepts of international climate diplomacy, including the roles of the COP and CMA, the function of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), and the development of the 'Paris rulebook' (Modalities, Procedures and Guidelines). It also outlines financial mechanisms like the Green Climate Fund and the $100 billion goal, as well as processes for increasing climate ambition such as the Global Stocktake and the Talanoa Dialogue.

The document outlines the technical goals of COP23, focusing on the 'Rule Book' for the Paris Agreement, climate finance for developing countries, and the role of non-state actors. It analyzes how the US withdrawal has paradoxically strengthened international coalitions and spurred sub-national action within the US, while emphasizing Fiji's leadership in advocating for loss and damage and ocean governance.

The briefing argues that President Macron's 2017 climate summit should implement a public finance package to offset U.S. budget cuts to the Green Climate Fund and other programs. The proposed package includes approving the reuse of Clean Technology Fund (CTF) reflows, converting CTF debt from Germany, France, and Canada into equity, and securing new pledges for the Adaptation Fund and the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF).