Search Climate Insights Directory

The document explores the multifaceted meaning of 'bankability' in climate finance, arguing that it extends beyond traditional financial returns to include socioeconomic and environmental impacts. It provides lessons from CDKN's work in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, highlighting how bankability requirements differ between public and private funders and between mitigation and adaptation projects. The paper concludes with a guiding checklist for project developers to improve the success rate of proposals submitted to multilateral funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF).

Ethiopia is positioned as a climate leader, being the first Least Developed Country to submit an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution (INDC). The government aims to reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions from 150 Mt CO2eq in 2010 to 145 Mt CO2eq by 2030. To support these goals, CDKN has assisted the Ministry of Finance and Economic Cooperation (MoFEC) in achieving accreditation as a National Implementing Entity for the Green Climate Fund and the Adaptation Fund in March 2016. Infrastructure investments include a 34-km light rail transit in Addis Ababa and a 750-km railway to Djibouti. Additionally, CDKN is supporting the development of geothermal risk insurance and research into greening the industrial sector, specifically leather, garments, and cement.

Between 2010 and 2014, US$748 million in climate finance primarily targeting climate change was committed to 15 Pacific SIDS, predominantly as grants. The funding was split between adaptation (59%) and mitigation (36%), with 72% sourced through bilateral channels, led by Australia. The vast majority of support (86%) was project-based, with a heavy concentration in creating 'enabling environments' and renewable energy. The analysis notes that Polynesian countries were more successful in attracting diverse funding than Micronesian countries, and highlights significant differences in flexibility and transaction costs between bilateral and multilateral funding sources.

The document outlines a comprehensive framework for financing National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes, distinguishing between the lower-cost 'development phase' (planning and coordination) and the high-cost 'implementation phase' (execution of adaptation actions). It identifies four primary funding streams: national public finance (budgets, fiscal instruments, and national climate funds), bilateral providers (grants and technical assistance), multilateral funds (such as the Green Climate Fund and Adaptation Fund), and the private sector (through direct investment and public-private partnerships). The guide emphasizes the necessity of a tailored financing strategy that identifies funding gaps, determines appropriate financial instruments, and establishes operational steps to align national adaptation priorities with available resources.

The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016, with 100 countries representing 67% of global greenhouse gas emissions having ratified it. COP22 and the first meeting of the CMA are tasked with developing operational rules for transparency, progress monitoring, and ramping up ambition to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Key points of contention include the verification of national commitments and the insufficiency of pledges to meet the $100 billion climate finance goal for developing countries by 2020. South Africa has ratified the agreement and set an emissions reduction target of 398–614 MtCO2e for 2025–2030, though this is largely conditional on external assistance and complicated by a continued reliance on coal and budgetary restraints.

The briefing outlines five key priorities for climate finance at COP22: the roadmap to mobilize $100 billion for developing countries by 2020, the establishment of accounting modalities to define what constitutes climate finance, the development of systematic reporting formats for finance provided and received, the need to scale up and balance adaptation finance relative to mitigation, and the potential renewal of the Adaptation Fund's mandate to serve the Paris Agreement.

Ethiopia has established a comprehensive framework for a climate-resilient green economy, led by the Prime Minister's Office and integrated into national development plans. The country has invested significantly from its own budget—approximately 14.5% between 2008 and 2012—and established the Climate Resilient Green Economy Facility to attract international finance, securing US$40 million from bilateral partners by 2015. Key achievements include the 2015 submission of an Intended Nationally Determined Contribution and the development of green infrastructure like the Addis Ababa light rail. However, barriers remain, including the need for deeper integration into operational budgeting, technical capacity gaps, and the challenge of replicating federal success at the regional level.

The report outlines a framework for financing the implementation of National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), focusing on three primary sources: domestic public budgets, international public funds, and private sector investment. It emphasizes the role of NAPs in articulating priorities to secure funding and highlights the necessity of integrating adaptation into national planning and budgeting cycles. Key discussions include the use of fiscal instruments to raise domestic revenue, the challenges of tracking adaptation finance, the process of developing 'bankable' project pipelines for international funds, and the public sector's role in creating an enabling environment for private investment.

The author contends that international aviation and shipping, which together account for approximately 5% of global CO2 emissions, are being overlooked in Paris negotiations despite projected emission growth of up to 270% by 2050. The text criticizes the removal of references to the '2C objective' and levy schemes for the Adaptation Fund from draft texts and calls for the ICAO and IMO to provide transparent annual emissions data.

The document outlines a diverse landscape of climate financing for cities, categorised into local internal revenues, external third-party sources, and international funds. Local options include property and land taxes, user fees, development charges, and Tax Increment Financing (TIF), as well as 'intracting' for energy retrofits. External sources feature Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), green bonds, and crowdfunding. International support is available through climate funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF), Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and philanthropic organisations, though the authors note that most international funds require cooperation with national governments due to strict fiduciary and creditworthiness standards. The guide emphasizes that while international funds are necessary for large-scale projects, local sources foster greater municipal autonomy and sustainability.

The document examines the fragmentation of social and environmental standards across UNFCCC instruments, including the CDM, REDD+, NAMAs, GCF, and AF. It finds that while some funds like the GCF and AF have robust safeguard policies, others like the CDM and NAMAs lack mandatory monitoring, universal guidelines for stakeholder consultation, or formal redress mechanisms. The author recommends that the Paris climate treaty explicitly mandate the protection of human rights and establish a centralized UNFCCC accountability mechanism and safeguards system to ensure climate actions do not cause adverse social or environmental impacts.

Carbon Market Watch argues that international carbon markets must be supplementary to domestic action and governed by strict eligibility, accounting, and integrity rules to avoid the failures of previous mechanisms like the CDM and EU ETS. The organization recommends excluding REDD-plus and agriculture from carbon markets, implementing a 'negative list' of ineligible project types, and establishing a UN-led standard-setting body to prevent double-counting and ensure net atmospheric benefits.

The document asserts that climate change is a major human rights challenge, threatening rights to life, health, and food security, particularly for vulnerable groups. It criticizes the UNFCCC for slow progress in operationalizing rights protections and recommends that the 2015 climate agreement include explicit human rights obligations, establish institutional safeguards, create a dedicated work programme on human rights and climate change, and implement a grievance mechanism to address harms caused by mitigation and adaptation activities.

The document positions climate change as a major human rights challenge, noting that environmental degradation threatens fundamental rights such as life, health, and food security. It criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to operationalize human rights protections despite recognizing them in 2010. The authors propose a human-rights-based approach to climate action, emphasizing the need to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, provide compensation for loss and damage, and establish institutional safeguards, including a formal complaints mechanism and a dedicated work program on human rights and climate change.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima. It details the progress of the US$100 billion annual mobilization goal, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the financial challenges facing the Adaptation Fund. The document also examines the role of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) in improving the measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) of financial flows and the coordination of forest financing. Additionally, it discusses the integration of finance into Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and the elements of the forthcoming 2015 climate agreement.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima, focusing on long-term funding goals, the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund, and the roles of various financial mechanisms under the UNFCCC.

The CFAS Guide outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP20 in Lima. It details the goal of mobilizing 100 billion USD annually by 2020, the role of the Standing Committee on Finance (SCF) in monitoring financial flows, and the operational progress of the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Adaptation Fund, and Global Environment Facility (GEF). The document emphasizes the need for predictability in funding, the balance between mitigation and adaptation, and the development of measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems for climate support.

Carbon Market Watch argues that previous market-based mechanisms, such as the CDM and EU ETS, failed due to oversupply and poor environmental integrity. To prevent these failures in a post-2020 regime, the organization recommends strict eligibility rules based on national ambition, the exclusion of REDD-plus and agriculture from carbon markets, and the implementation of discounting to ensure net atmospheric benefits. It further calls for a UN-led standard-setting body, a robust institutional safeguard system to protect human rights, and a share of proceeds from all traded units to be allocated to the Adaptation Fund.

The document examines the portrayal of vulnerability and the distribution of adaptation benefits in proposals approved by the Adaptation Fund Board up to December 2012. It argues that focusing on country-level allocation ignores the locally contextualized nature of vulnerability and seeks to provide lessons for the Green Climate Fund regarding the equitable and efficient allocation of scarce resources.

The SB 40 conference in Bonn saw limited progress on reforming Kyoto Protocol mechanisms and defining a framework for various mitigation approaches, though 60 nations agreed to phase out fossil fuels by mid-century. Negotiations on the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI) were largely postponed to future sessions in Lima, while discussions continued on including land-use sectors in the CDM and the role of local stakeholder consultation.