Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing outlines the necessity of a "managed phaseout" for coal plants, where stakeholders coordinate to retire plants early and replace them with clean energy. It identifies five specific financing mechanisms—managed transition vehicles, coal retirement credits, ratepayer-backed securitizations, power hedges, and concessional financing—that can provide the necessary capital to compensate workers and communities while funding renewable energy projects.

Project GAIA establishes a framework to integrate gender equality and social inclusion into its investment cycle, requiring all approved projects to develop specific GESI Action Plans. The plan focuses on five pillars: governance, leadership, employment, capacity building, and consumption (access to basic services). It sets platform-level targets, such as achieving 30% women in governance by year one, and project-level requirements, including mandatory gender assessments and the use of sex-disaggregated data in impact reporting. The framework also incorporates safeguarding measures against sexual exploitation, abuse, and harassment (SEAH) and gender-based violence (GBVH).

The report argues that the Dominican Republic can eliminate its annual US$2 billion electricity subsidy by investing 2.5 to 3 years' worth of those funds (US$4.5 to US$6 billion) into rooftop solar installations. Using a blended finance approach—combining government grants with local loans—the model aims to reduce household electricity costs by up to 90% over time while ending the government's reliance on volatile fossil fuel expenditures.

Global energy transition investments reached a record USD 1.3 trillion in 2022, but this is less than one-third of the annual USD 5 trillion needed to meet the 1.5°C Scenario. While renewable energy investments grew to nearly USD 0.5 trillion in 2022, they remain heavily concentrated in solar and wind technologies and a few regions, primarily East Asia and Pacific. Developing and emerging markets receive a disproportionately small share of finance; for example, Sub-Saharan Africa received less than 1.5% of global investments between 2000 and 2020. The report emphasizes that private capital prioritizes low-risk, commercially viable projects, leaving a critical gap in less mature technologies and high-risk regions. It argues for a fundamental shift in public financing, moving beyond simple de-risking to provide more grants, concessional loans, and innovative instruments like local currency lending and green bonds to ensure a just and inclusive transition.

The report finds that global methane abatement finance reached USD 13.7 billion in 2021/22, yet remains far below the estimated annual need of USD 48 billion by 2030. While the AFOLU sector saw a 77% increase in funding, the fossil fuel sector—which has the highest mitigation potential—received less than 1% of tracked finance. Private sources provided 70% of total funding, primarily through debt and equity, while public finance declined by 10%. Geographically, East Asia and the Pacific, the U.S. and Canada, and Western Europe are the top recipients, leaving a significant support gap in Latin America and South Asia.

The report finds that while global climate finance reached USD 1.3 trillion in 2021–2022, adaptation finance is diminishing in relative importance, accounting for only 5% of total flows. Developing countries face a significant funding gap, needing approximately USD 212 billion annually by 2030. In Africa, adaptation finance grew modestly by 14% to USD 13 billion annually, yet remains far below the estimated need of USD 53 billion per year. The analysis highlights an over-reliance on debt as the primary financial instrument and a critical lack of robust, adaptation-specific commitments from public financial institutions. Furthermore, it reveals a disconnect between adaptation finance and humanitarian aid, noting that the most fragile African states depend on emergency response funding because they struggle to access proactive adaptation finance.

The report finds that dedicated outdoor air quality funding is critically low, representing less than 1% of total international development commitments. While there is a significant pool of funding with air quality co-benefits, the report argues for more explicit intentionality in project design. It highlights a geographic concentration of funds in Asia and a lack of investment in Africa. The document also notes a positive trend where funding for air quality projects exceeded fossil fuel-prolonging projects for the first time in 2021.

This proposal seeks USD 781,219 over 24 months to address climate finance readiness gaps in Sri Lanka, with a primary focus on the agriculture sector. The project aims to update Technology Needs Assessments (TNAs) and Technology Action Plans (TAPs) across 15 sectors, update the Agro-Ecological Region (AER) map, and create a Climate-Smart Agriculture (CSA) investment plan. Key objectives include strengthening private sector engagement through a dedicated Working Group and public-private forums, developing two bankable GCF concept notes, and establishing a harmonized climate information system by linking the national portal to FAO's CAVA platform.

The document outlines the role of Coal Transition Mechanisms (CTMs) in accelerating the shift from coal to clean energy, particularly in emerging markets. It highlights the challenge that 93% of coal capacity is shielded from market pressures by regulation or contracts, necessitating blended finance and CTMs to manage early retirement. To address reputational risks—such as the appearance of financing coal or failing to protect workers—the authors propose a framework focused on assessing moral hazard, ensuring Paris-aligned emissions savings, supporting just transition provisions, and maintaining transparency through public disclosures.

The Institute for Economic Justice criticizes the $8.5-billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in South Africa, arguing that its reliance on loans and private-sector 'de-risking' rather than grants will increase energy costs and benefit foreign investors while neglecting local manufacturing and worker protections. The document further condemns the secretive nature of the negotiations, which it claims undermines procedural justice and excludes key stakeholders.

The Institute for Economic Justice argues that South Africa's JETP is a flawed climate finance model that relies heavily on loans rather than grants, benefiting private Independent Power Producers (IPPs) while leaving the state with the financial risk. The author contends that the deal lacks transparency, fails to adequately fund the localization of the renewable energy value chain, and provides insufficient social security for workers in the coal belt.

The report examines the growth of green bonds in emerging markets, identifying critical success factors such as sound regulatory frameworks, investor demand, public sector participation, and macroeconomic stability. It details barriers including underdeveloped capital markets, a lack of bankable projects, and the risk of greenwashing. The document provides a five-step issuance process and analyzes the roles of development banks and national governments in catalyzing markets. Case studies on India and Kenya illustrate different stages of market readiness, from a corporate-led leader (India) to a nascent market (Kenya), offering tailored policy advice to enhance sustainable finance flows.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of the climate finance landscape in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, detailing the mechanisms used to fund climate action. It analyzes the roles of multilateral funds (such as the GCF and GEF), bilateral aid, national budgets, and emerging private sector instruments like green bonds and blended finance. The document highlights significant funding gaps, particularly for adaptation, and recommends strengthening institutional frameworks, adopting climate budget tagging, and improving technical capacity to develop bankable projects.

By 30 September 2022, cumulative global GSS+ debt topped USD3.5 trillion, with green bonds surpassing the USD2 trillion milestone. While Q3 2022 saw a decline in issuance volumes due to geopolitical and macroeconomic factors, the market remains dominated by EUR, USD, and CNY denominations. In the Middle East and Africa (MEA), the GSS+ market has reached USD33.2 billion, characterized by a high proportion of sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) compared to the global average, reflecting the region's concentration of hard-to-abate sectors.

IDFC members reported a record $224 billion in green finance commitments in 2021, with climate finance accounting for 95% of the total. Mitigation finance reached $186.6 billion, while adaptation finance decreased by 24% to $20.9 billion. Biodiversity finance grew by 31% to $18.4 billion. The majority of climate finance was provided by non-OECD institutions and directed toward the East Asia and Pacific region.

In 2019/20, Ethiopia's tracked climate finance averaged USD 1.7 billion, representing only 7% of its estimated annual needs of USD 25.3 billion. The landscape is heavily dominated by international public finance (92%), with a strong preference for adaptation projects (56%) over mitigation (38%). While the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector received the most sectoral finance (29%), it remains significantly underfunded relative to its 83% contribution to national GHG emissions. Key barriers to scaling finance include a highly regulated financial sector, lack of a stock market, unfavorable collateral policies for SMEs, and a heavy reliance on grants over private capital. The report recommends establishing a comprehensive climate budget tagging system, conducting bottom-up needs assessments, and developing capital markets to mobilize private investment.

In 2019/20, Ethiopia's tracked climate finance averaged USD 1.7 billion per year, representing only 7% of its estimated annual needs of USD 25.3 billion. The landscape is heavily dominated by international public finance (92%), with a strong preference for grants (70%) and a focus on adaptation (56%) over mitigation (38%). While the Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use (AFOLU) sector received the most sectoral finance (29%), it remains underfunded relative to its 83% contribution to national GHG emissions. Significant barriers to private investment include a highly regulated financial sector, lack of a stock market, and unfavorable collateral policies for SMEs and small-holder farmers.

The policy brief argues that the USD 8.5 billion Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) in South Africa relies on a 'de-risking' model that prioritises private finance and Independent Power Producers (IPPs), shifting commercial risks to the state and consumers. This approach is criticised for potentially worsening South Africa's debt profile, increasing energy poverty through higher tariffs, and undermining local renewable energy manufacturing. The authors suggest alternatives including the regulation of PPPs, debt cancellation of 'odious debt' (such as World Bank loans for the Medupi plant), climate reparations, and the implementation of allocative green credit policies to direct investment toward productive, labour-intensive green industries.

The document critiques the South African JETP for prioritising blended finance and public-private partnerships (PPPs), which the authors argue shifts commercial risk to the state while privatising gains. It highlights how this model can increase energy poverty through higher tariffs and hinder local renewable energy manufacturing. The brief suggests alternatives such as regulating private finance, pursuing debt cancellation and climate reparations, and implementing allocative green credit policies.

The document argues that while the costs of climate action are high, the costs of inaction are higher, noting that physical climate risk has already increased the cost of capital for V20 countries by USD62bn over 10 years. It proposes a three-pillar policy framework: providing clarity on green investments via taxonomies, tilting investment toward green opportunities through de-risking and carbon pricing, and building green investment pipelines. Key mechanisms suggested include the use of junior capital by development finance institutions to mobilize private investment, the removal of fossil fuel subsidies, and the implementation of carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs). The summary concludes with a list of 101 specific policy ideas across sectors including energy, transport, and agriculture to be detailed in a full report.