Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper identifies five key variables—motivation, concessionality/source, causality, geographic origin, and recipient—that shape the debate over what constitutes climate finance. It uses concentric 'onion diagrams' to map these variables based on the level of political consensus among stakeholders, with the center representing the strongest consensus. The authors provide an integrated framework to help Parties transparently communicate their preferences and identify zones of agreement, while also highlighting critical accounting issues such as committed versus disbursed funds and nominal versus subsidy costs.

The document expresses disappointment over the Green Climate Fund's (GCF) accreditation of Deutsche Bank, the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB). The signatories argue that accrediting entities with poor human rights records and heavy investments in coal and fossil fuels contradicts the GCF's goal of supporting low-carbon, climate-resilient societies. They further criticize the accreditation process as non-transparent, alleging that the Board approved applicants in blocs, which encouraged 'political horse-trading' and ignored critical information about the track records of the institutions involved.

Carbon Market Watch argues that while carbon markets can be useful for high-cost emission reduction sectors, they must not substitute for domestic action or lead to the lock-in of high-carbon infrastructure. The organization emphasizes the necessity of an all-encompassing international accounting framework to prevent double counting and calls for the integration of social and environmental safeguards, including a grievance mechanism for the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The report examines the feasibility of reaching the $100 billion annual climate finance goal by 2020 through four scenarios of varying inclusivity. It finds that relying solely on developed country climate finance is insufficient, while a combination of public flows—including multilateral development bank (MDB) finance and climate-related official development assistance (ODA)—alongside leveraged private sector investment makes the target achievable even under low-growth projections. The analysis highlights a persistent imbalance, with mitigation finance projected to significantly outweigh adaptation finance across all scenarios.

The We Mean Business Coalition acknowledges the US pledge to reduce greenhouse gas pollution by 26-28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025 as a positive step but argues it is insufficient to prevent 3.5 degrees Celsius of warming. The coalition calls for a detailed national decarbonization pathway targeting 80% or more reductions by 2050, a five-year cycle for strengthening targets, and the scale-up of public finance via the Green Climate Fund to leverage private sector capital.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is positioned to be the world's largest multilateral adaptation finance institution, with donor governments committing US$10.2 billion by the end of 2014, half of which is earmarked for adaptation. To ensure effectiveness, the GCF must address cross-cutting parameters including its investment framework, gender policies, stakeholder involvement, and country ownership. Specific recommendations for 2015 include leveraging National Implementing Entities, piloting 'small grants' via enhanced direct access, and integrating adaptation aspects into accountability frameworks. Additionally, the future effectiveness of the GCF's Private Sector Facility remains uncertain pending operational decisions in 2015.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is positioned to become the largest multilateral institution for climate adaptation finance, with donor governments committing US$10.2 billion by the end of 2014. To ensure effectiveness, the document argues that the GCF must prioritize country ownership through direct access modalities, develop robust investment and accountability frameworks that avoid maladaptation, and clarify the role of its Private Sector Facility. It specifically suggests piloting small grants facilities under 'enhanced direct access' to reach local organizations and leveraging the experience of existing National Implementing Entities already accredited by the Adaptation Fund.

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 Obama administration's FY 2016 budget proposal emphasizes an "all of the above" energy strategy and the Climate Action Plan, proposing significant funding increases for the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation (DOT), and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Key investments include $7.4 billion for clean energy technology, a proposed $4 billion Clean Power Plan Incentive Fund, and $1.29 billion for the Global Climate Change Initiative. The budget targets specific greenhouse gas emission reductions by 2020, 2025, and 2050, while funding diverse initiatives ranging from solar and wind energy to sustainable transportation and international climate finance.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) responds to the 2015 State of the Union address by endorsing President Obama's science-based approach to climate change. WRI highlights the administration's recent achievements, including a joint emissions commitment with China and a $3 billion pledge to the Green Climate Fund, while urging a continued focus on ambitious power plant standards and renewable energy to drive economic growth and global cooperation.

The Lima COP 20 summit focused on defining the instructions for a legally binding global agreement to be finalized in Paris in December 2015. Key achievements included the agreement that Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) be presented by October 2015 and the shift away from the Kyoto Protocol's industrialisation-based differentiation, with major emitters like the USA and China showing willingness to reduce emissions. The summit also saw new contributions to the Green Climate Fund, which reached US$10.2m, and progress on the REDD+ mechanism and gender-responsive climate policies. However, issues regarding the International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, market mechanisms, and the Technology Mechanism remained unresolved.

The 10th GCF Board meeting resulted in the accreditation of 13 new entities, including the World Bank and Deutsche Bank, despite civil society opposition. The Board approved a US$200 million pilot for Enhanced Direct Access, alongside other pilots for MSMEs and resource mobilization. Additionally, US$2.5 million was allocated for readiness support in nine countries, and the Fund's total signed contributions reached US$5.47 billion.

The document outlines the strategic priorities of the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) for the 2015 Paris climate agreement, emphasizing the need for equity, adaptation, and financial support. It details the role of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and the challenges of closing the 'ambition gap' to limit global warming to 2°C. The briefing highlights the importance of the Common But Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR) principle and the necessity of developed countries fulfilling their 100 billion USD annual climate finance pledge by 2020.

The document outlines the Pan-African Parliament's (PAP) expectations for the 2015 Paris Agreement, emphasizing the need for equity, justice, and a legally binding framework. It highlights the critical role of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) and the necessity of closing the ambition and finance gaps. The PAP advocates for a strong focus on adaptation, the operationalization of the 'common but differentiated responsibilities' (CBDR) principle, and the fulfillment of the $100 billion annual climate finance commitment by developed nations. It also discusses the technical challenges of the negotiations, including the legal form of the agreement and the management of loss and damage.

The Royal Government of Cambodia has designated the Ministry of Environment as the National Designated Authority (NDA) to serve as the interface with the Green Climate Fund (GCF). The government expressed interest in GCF readiness support to develop project pipelines, identify implementing entities, and mainstream climate change into government management systems, citing the Cambodia Climate Change Strategic Plan (2014-23) as its strategic framework.

The briefing outlines three key areas of contention at the COP 20 climate talks in Lima: the establishment of a formal process to assess the ambition and fairness of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), the mobilization of $100 billion in dedicated climate finance by 2020, and the integration of adaptation goals and assessment cycles into the final agreement. It emphasizes that these decisions are essential prerequisites for the agreement to be concluded in Paris at the end of 2015.

The statement criticizes developed nations, specifically Japan, for using climate finance to fund coal-fired power plants in developing countries like Indonesia. It highlights a lack of coherent rules for the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and argues that current international climate agreements, including the US-China deal, are insufficient and non-binding. The author demands that climate finance be restricted to renewable energy and that developed countries fulfill their 'climate debt' through public finance and technology transfers.

The document contends that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) lacks the necessary environmental and social standards to be integrated into results-based climate finance. It highlights that many CDM projects fail to produce real emission reductions due to a lack of additionality and have caused negative impacts on local communities, including human rights violations. The author argues that the Green Climate Fund (GCF) should not purchase stranded offset credits from existing CDM projects, as this would contradict the GCF's mandate for new and additional financial resources and its own interim environmental and social safeguards, which require stakeholder participation and grievance mechanisms that the CDM lacks.

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.