Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper examines climate finance for 15 Pacific Island states from 2010 to 2014, finding that 748 million USD was committed, primarily as grants and project-based support. Adaptation received the largest share of funding (59%), with bilateral channels providing 72% of the total. While the Global Environment Facility was the dominant multilateral source through 2014, the Green Climate Fund and Pilot Program for Climate Resilience have provided significant allocations since 2015.

The letter argues that international frameworks for aviation and shipping emissions are insufficient to meet Paris Agreement goals. It specifically criticizes ICAO's CORSIA for relying on offsets and the IMO for delaying global CO2 measures. The authors call for the EU ETS to return to full-scope for aviation, include all EU-related shipping emissions in 2030 targets, and eliminate free allowances for both sectors to fund climate initiatives.

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.

Between 2010 and 2014, US$748 million in climate finance was committed to 15 Pacific SIDS, primarily as grants and delivered through bilateral channels. Adaptation received 59% of this funding, while 36% went to mitigation. The majority of support (86%) was project-based, with a strong focus on creating an 'enabling environment' for climate policy and planning.

Carbon Market Watch outlines specific requirements for the implementation of Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, focusing on cooperative approaches, the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), and non-market mechanisms. The organization argues that to avoid a "race to the bottom," robust multilateral rules are needed to prevent double counting and perverse incentives. Key recommendations include limiting eligible activities to those within the scope of Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), requiring host countries to certify that actions do not violate human rights, and designing the SDM as a tool for results-based finance rather than "zero sum offsetting."

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.

Between 2010 and 2014, the Federated States of Micronesia received US$ 3.93 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with 99.4% (US$ 3.91 million) dedicated to adaptation. Australia was the primary source of this funding, with the largest allocations directed toward environmental research and disaster prevention and preparedness. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, the country received US$ 0.3 million from the Green Climate Fund for readiness support and US$ 0.85 million from the Global Environment Facility for reporting purposes.

Between 2010 and 2014, Vanuatu received US$49.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a majority supporting mitigation. The primary sources of this funding were the Global Environment Facility, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates, focusing on environmental policy, renewables, and disaster preparedness. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Vanuatu received further allocations from the Green Climate Fund, the LDCF, and the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program.

Friends of the Earth Haiti calls for a compensation fund and increased support for the Green Climate Fund to assist fragile economies recovering from climate-related disasters, citing Haiti's economic losses of over US$10bn over 12 years despite its minimal contribution to global warming.

The document details a two-day workshop held in October 2016 in Dakar, Senegal, involving over 25 participants from seven West African countries. It examines the implications of the Paris Agreement, specifically Article 6 and carbon markets, while highlighting the failures of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and the challenges of accessing the Green Climate Fund. The workshop concluded with the 'Dakar Declaration,' which provides six specific recommendations for West African negotiators at COP22 to ensure the new sustainable development mechanism prioritises human rights, the least developed countries, and a shift from market-based offsets to climate finance.

The document argues that achieving NDC goals requires substantial private sector investment in low-carbon, climate-resilient infrastructure. It proposes using Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to create the policy and financial frameworks necessary to make these investments competitive against carbon-intensive alternatives by addressing investment barriers and risks.

The document outlines a multi-level governance approach to urban climate action, emphasizing that while cities are primary sites of emissions and vulnerability, they require supportive national policy frameworks and international financing to achieve transformative change. It details local jurisdictional powers, national enabling environments, and specific access modalities for the Green Climate Fund.

The research analyzes how climate finance investments generate economic value added not only in recipient countries but also in third countries through international trade, termed 'spill-overs'. Using a GMRIO model, the study finds that on average 28.6% of the total economic impact spills over to other countries. The ability to retain value added varies by country, with India and Brazil retaining around 80%, while Mexico and Indonesia retain no more than two thirds. The EU is the primary beneficiary of these spill-overs. The study also identifies that different types of climate actions produce varying levels of spill-overs: renewable energy technologies often generate high spill-overs (exceeding 35% for some), whereas forestry and coastal protection generate fewer than 20%. The authors suggest that donor countries may be influenced by these spill-over prospects when allocating funds, and recipient countries should improve industrial competitiveness to retain more economic gains.

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 document serves as a guide for commercial banks, MSMEs, and investors in Bangladesh to engage with the Green Climate Fund. It details the roles of the National Designated Authority (NDA), the process for becoming a National Implementing Entity (NIE), and the options for acting as an executing entity. It specifically highlights the Private Sector Facility (PSF) and its MSME support programme, outlining the fiduciary, environmental, and social standards required for accreditation, as well as the criteria used to evaluate project proposals.

The report identifies that while climate change acts as a stressor to existing business risks, it also creates opportunities for Bangladeshi companies to develop new products, access new markets, and achieve cost savings. It highlights specific opportunities in the energy, agriculture, insurance, and banking/finance sectors, such as solar home systems and climate-resilient seeds. To overcome scaling challenges, the report recommends utilizing the Green Climate Fund's Private Sector Facility (PSF) and building strategic partnerships with NGOs, government agencies, and international development partners.

The document argues that private sector engagement is essential for scaling up climate compatible development in Bangladesh due to public budget constraints and the private sector's own exposure to climate risks. While the Green Climate Fund (GCF) provides financial opportunities, the private sector is hindered by information gaps, capacity constraints, and limited access to low-cost finance.

The document examines the financing gap for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), noting that demand for implementation funding far exceeds available dedicated supply. It identifies several barriers to investment, including a narrow focus on specific donor requirements, a lack of financial planning expertise in project design, and misalignment with the investment logic of multilateral development banks. The paper argues that NAMAs must diversify their funding sources and integrate with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to achieve transformational impact, while recommending early engagement with finance ministries and the private sector to improve project bankability.

The letter calls for the EU ETS revision to align with the 1.5 degree goal of the Paris Agreement, establish a mechanism to direct revenues toward international climate finance, and correct the assumption that biomass burning is carbon neutral.

The document urges the European Parliament to revise the EU Emissions Trading System (EU ETS) to align with the 1.5°C goal of the Paris Agreement. It proposes using EU ETS revenues as a source of international climate finance, establishing an international climate action fund, and correcting the assumption that biomass burning is carbon neutral due to a lack of sustainability criteria.