Search Climate Insights Directory

The document assesses the climate finance landscape in Indonesia, highlighting a significant gap between the financial needs for mitigation and adaptation and the available funds. Using Kupang as a case study, it identifies a lack of local regulatory frameworks and action plans, which hinders the ability of cities to access national and international funding. The report recommends the establishment of local trust funds and a dedicated information platform to help cities mobilize resources from public, private, and international sources.

The report examines the historical lack of gender consideration in climate change mitigation financing, which has traditionally prioritized 'gender neutral' technical measures. Through case studies in Nepal, Mali, and Colombia, it demonstrates that gender mainstreaming—integrating gender issues from a project's outset—enhances outcomes. Key findings emphasize the necessity of socially disaggregated data, the role of economic co-benefits in securing community support, and the importance of gender-sensitive institutional policies. The document highlights that women's active participation in planning and decision-making is critical for the long-term viability of emission reduction initiatives.

The policy brief emphasizes that water security is a prerequisite for growth and development in Africa, noting that climate variability can significantly reduce GDP. It advocates for a strategy of 'no/low regret' investments—those that provide returns regardless of the climate scenario—to address the 'adaptation deficit' and minimize risks. The document calls for cross-sectoral coordination, increased investment in water management, and the exploitation of specialized climate adaptation funding, such as the potential Green Climate Fund, to build long-term resilience.

The document argues that achieving water security in Africa requires tens of billions of dollars annually, with climate resilience adding an additional US$10–15 billion. It suggests a blended financing approach combining traditional water finance, official development assistance, and specialized climate finance to bridge the funding gap. While most climate finance currently targets mitigation, the briefing emphasizes the need for adaptation funding and the role of the Green Climate Fund in supporting African water infrastructure.

The report argues that climate mitigation projects often ignore gender, treating technical solutions as 'gender neutral,' which can reinforce inequalities. By examining projects in Nepal, Mali, and Colombia, it demonstrates that integrating gender perspectives—through sex-disaggregated data, targeted training, and safety measures—increases the effectiveness and long-term viability of mitigation efforts. It highlights the role of international mechanisms like the UNFCCC, GEF, and CDM in promoting gender-responsive climate finance.

The document outlines a three-step process for NDC implementation: preparatory work, plan elaboration, and execution. It emphasizes a holistic approach across five key modules: governance, mitigation, adaptation, finance, and measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV). The guide stresses the importance of integrating climate actions into national development planning, ensuring gender sensitivity, and aligning with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

The Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) is currently empty, causing 29 climate adaptation projects to be put on hold with an urgent funding need of US$ 220 million as of June. The author, Giza Gaspar Martins, emphasizes that the LDCF is unique because it provides grant-based finance and equitable access to the 48 poorest countries, who often lack the capacity to compete for resources from larger funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF). To make the fund 'fit for purpose,' the author proposes establishing a sustainable replenishment cycle, enabling alternative funding sources, and repositioning the LDCF as an 'incubator' to help LDCs scale up projects through larger finance mechanisms.

The Sierra Club and Center for International Environmental Law argue that country ownership and international environmental and social safeguards are complementary. They propose a five-part policy framework for the Green Climate Fund including alignment with international standards, transparency, protections for vulnerable groups, clear compliance requirements, and a comprehensive environmental management system.

The document argues for a transparent, country-driven MRV system for REDD+ that integrates carbon monitoring with social and environmental safeguards. It emphasizes the need for clear definitions of 'forest' using FAO categories to distinguish between the five REDD+ activities and calls for the full participation of indigenous peoples and local communities in the MRV process. The submission also highlights the necessity of a common reporting format for REDD+ finance to ensure transparency and accountability, particularly regarding 'new and additional' funding and the Green Climate Fund safeguards.

The Common Position of Latin America and the Caribbean on Climate Change and Health identifies the region's high vulnerability to extreme weather and climate-sensitive diseases, exacerbated by structural inequalities. It argues for the integration of health into national climate policies (NDCs and NAPs), the strengthening of primary care, and the application of climate justice for marginalized communities. The document highlights significant gaps in health sector adaptation planning and a lack of health-specific indicators in climate finance, specifically noting that only 11.6% of Green Climate Fund projects in the region include explicit health benefits. It calls for a fair transition to a fossil-fuel-free economy and increased international support for regional health capacities.

The document argues that climate change severely impacts the physical and mental health of populations in Latin America and the Caribbean, exacerbating existing socioeconomic and structural inequalities. It identifies critical gaps in health system resilience, a lack of climate-health integration in professional education, and insufficient financing, noting that only 11.6% of Green Climate Fund projects in the region explicitly include health benefits. To address these, the Common Position advocates for the full application of climate justice principles, the strengthening of primary healthcare, and the inclusion of health indicators in the Global Adaptation Goal at COP30 and the Belém Health Action Plan.

The Sharm el-Sheikh mitigation ambition and implementation work programme (MWP), established at COP26, aims to accelerate global emissions reductions through non-prescriptive dialogues and capacity-building. While COP30 confirmed the programme's continuation through 2026 and improved finance matchmaking and inclusiveness, significant divergences remain between developed and developing nations regarding the level of prescriptive guidance for sectoral pathways and the scale of financial commitments. Key areas of ongoing debate include the design of a digital platform for information sharing and the balance between global guidance and national sovereignty in managing forests and waste.

Asia faces a critical adaptation finance gap, with only USD 34 billion in tracked flows against an annual need of USD 212 billion (or USD 431 billion by some estimates). The document identifies systemic barriers including complex access to global funds, institutional capacity constraints, low disbursement rates, and a reliance on loans over grants. It recommends a 'whole-of-government' strategy, scaling up high-quality international public finance, implementing locally led adaptation principles, and developing detailed Adaptation Investment Plans (AIPs) to make projects bankable.

The briefing argues that the draft Article 6.4 Appeal and Grievance Procedure (AGP) is inadequate compared to the Green Climate Fund's Independent Redress Mechanism (IRM). Using seven UN Human Rights Council effectiveness criteria, the author finds the AGP lacks legitimacy, accessibility, predictability, equitability, transparency, rights compatibility, and a mechanism for continuous learning. Key deficiencies include potential filing fees, English-only submissions, a lack of retaliation safeguards, and the absence of independent reviews.

The report contends that carbon offsets in agriculture fail to reduce absolute emissions due to measurement uncertainties, lack of permanence, and issues with additionality. It highlights how these schemes often benefit agribusinesses while undermining food security, increasing land financialization, and locking in industrial farming models. The authors recommend excluding the land sector from international carbon markets under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement and redirecting finance toward agroecological practices.

Carbon Market Watch argues that the EU ETS should restart in full scope in 2017 and that the ICAO's GMBM must be a legally binding floor for ambition rather than a ceiling. The organization advocates for the elimination of free allowances for aviation, the use of a multiplier of at least two for CO2 emissions to account for non-CO2 climate impacts, and the earmarking of auctioning revenues for the Green Climate Fund.

The document is an open letter addressed to ministers and UNFCCC representatives during COP-19. Signed by 33 civil society networks and individuals from 87 countries, it argues that carbon markets must not compromise the ambition of climate mitigation efforts. The authors call for a comprehensive climate agreement by 2015, specifically demanding the rejection of pilot phase trading under the Diversified Framework Approach (FVA), the removal of non-additional projects and coal power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and the establishment of international verification to prevent double counting.

The 9th GCF Board meeting resulted in the accreditation of the first seven implementing entities and the adoption of an initial investment framework to screen project proposals. However, civil society criticized the accreditation process for a lack of transparency and the Board's failure to explicitly exclude fossil fuel projects from funding. The Fund faces a critical deadline of 30 April 2015 to secure the remaining US$4.5 billion in pledged contributions to become officially effective, with only about 1 per cent legally committed as of the report's date.

The policy brief outlines seven areas where the EU should enhance its climate policies following the Paris agreement. Key recommendations include increasing the 2020 emission reduction target to 30%, revising the 2050 low-carbon roadmap to meet the 1.5°C objective, and adopting 5-year ambition cycles. It also calls for the phase-out of free pollution permits for industry, the inclusion of aviation and maritime sectors in the EU ETS, and the use of the Sustainable Development Mechanism to finance emission reductions in developing countries without relying on offsetting.

FSD Africa's Climate Finance Training Programme aims to close the green funding gap in Africa by training policymakers, regulators, and financial professionals. The program focuses on building the skills necessary to access the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and other climate funds, specifically through the accreditation of direct access entities (DAEs). To date, the training has reached 70 officials and 31 students from 13 institutions across 11 countries. The program expects to drive a sixteen-fold increase in investments in sub-Saharan Africa, with a projected funding split of 40% from climate funds and 60% from private sector financing tools. In Ethiopia, the training targeted staff from the Ministry of Finance, the National Bank of Ethiopia, and the Ethiopia Roads Authority to foster policy change and the potential issuance of green bonds.