Search Climate Insights Directory

Climate finance in Africa grew by 48% between 2019/20 and 2021/22, reaching USD 43.7 billion, yet this remains only 23% of the annual funding required to meet 2030 NDC goals. Public finance dominates the landscape, providing 82% of total flows, while private finance is heavily concentrated in energy systems and a small number of countries. The report highlights a critical 'trilemma' where climate-vulnerable countries are often simultaneously debt-distressed and conflict-affected, further hindering their access to grants and affordable capital. Key recommendations include reforming domestic fiscal policies to remove fossil fuel subsidies, scaling the use of guarantees to de-risk private investment, and leveraging domestic institutional assets, such as pension funds, to reduce reliance on international debt.

The briefing provides a comprehensive table of condensed negotiation options for the NCQG, covering its preamble, quantitative and qualitative structure, temporal scope, contributor base, and transparency arrangements. It synthesizes submissions from various Parties and groups to streamline the decision-making process for the CMA6.

The report argues that while there is growing interest in adaptation finance, collaboration between international and national public development banks in EMDEs remains limited and often treats adaptation as a co-benefit rather than a primary goal. It identifies structural barriers—such as complex application processes, lack of shared taxonomies, and local currency risk—and proposes five strategic recommendations: complementary taxonomies, country platform approaches, regional adaptation hubs, capacity-building, and the use of blended finance to de-risk projects.

The report introduces a machine learning-based approach and a detailed taxonomy to better capture private sector adaptation finance, which is historically under-reported. By applying this new methodology, the Climate Policy Initiative increased its tracked annual average private adaptation finance for 2019-2022 from USD 1.0 billion to USD 4.7 billion.

The statement advocates for integrating Human Mobility due to Climate Change (HMCC)—including migration and planned relocation—into the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) via the UAE-Belem Work Programme. It argues that treating HMCC solely as a 'Loss and Damage' issue overlooks its potential as an adaptation strategy. The author suggests that HMCC should be integrated into the iterative adaptation cycle and sector-specific plans rather than as a standalone sector, leveraging the fact that over 85% of countries already include some form of HMCC in their National Adaptation Plans (NAPs).

The document argues that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) must address critical gaps in adaptation finance, which has lagged behind mitigation. It proposes specific requirements for the goal's quantum and instruments to ensure sufficiency, the support of transboundary cooperation for effectiveness, and improved allocation and access mechanisms to ensure equity. Additionally, it suggests enhancing the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) and Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) to improve accountability for both providers and recipients of adaptation funding.

The Resilient Municipal Market Fund (ReMark) is a proposed blended finance facility designed to address the lack of investment in African urban food markets, which are critical to food security but vulnerable to climate risks. The instrument combines a revolving debt facility for capital expenditure loans (USD 0.5-10 million) and a technical assistance (TA) facility managed by ICLEI Africa to prepare markets for investment. The pilot phase targets six municipalities in East and Southern Africa with a total budget of approximately USD 35 million, including USD 30 million in debt and repayable grants and USD 5 million in TA grants. ReMark categorizes markets into three types (A, B, and C) based on financial maturity, proposing different pathways to bankability, including a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) structure for the most challenged markets. Planned retrofits include cold storage, off-grid solar PV, and improved drainage to reduce food waste and greenhouse gas emissions.

The document argues that the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) must include a specific annual adaptation finance target of at least USD 215 billion, prioritizing public grants and concessional loans over non-concessional debt. To be effective, the goal should balance global, national, and local priorities, including support for locally led adaptation and transboundary climate risk management. For equity, the brief recommends prioritizing Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), increasing funding for Indigenous Peoples and women, and simplifying access to finance through Direct Access and Enhanced Direct Access programs. It further suggests updating the Enhanced Transparency Framework (ETF) in 2028 to improve accountability for both providers and recipients of adaptation finance.

The briefing outlines a comprehensive framework of negotiation options for the NCQG, covering its preamble, the needs of developing countries, fundamental principles, temporal scope, and the structure of the goal. It details various proposals for the quantum of finance—ranging from USD 441 billion to 2.4 trillion—and suggests mechanisms for determining this amount based on developing country needs and temperature goals. Additionally, the document proposes qualitative elements regarding gender, human rights, and technology transfer, as well as specific enhancements for access to finance, levels of concessionality, and transparency arrangements for tracking progress.

The August 2024 RAMP Roundup details the initiative's efforts to enhance climate resilience through strategic engagements with government ministries and universities in Ethiopia, Kenya, and Uganda. Key activities include the launch of a 'Foundations Course' in Uganda, the use of the IMF's DIGNAD model for macro-climate modelling, and the establishment of a University Network Seminar Series. The newsletter also highlights research grants on disaster risk management and adaptation finance in Tanzania, Bangladesh, and sub-Saharan Africa, while noting that every dollar invested in adaptation can yield a return of $2 to $10.

The study examines the impact of informal institutions—specifically patronage and clientelism—on the distribution of international adaptation finance in Madagascar and Mauritius. Based on 105 interviews, the authors find that while these informal institutions strongly influenced decision-making in both countries, the projects differed in their ability to reach 'particularly vulnerable' communities. The authors suggest that adaptation organizations adopt an 'imperfect equity' approach to better navigate informal institutions and improve long-term accountability.

The Multilateral Climate Funds (MCFs)—comprising the Adaptation Fund, Climate Investment Funds, Global Environment Facility, and Green Climate Fund—have developed a consultation draft action plan to coordinate their efforts. The plan focuses on five key areas: clarifying investment profiles and harmonizing processes, coordinating capacity building and programming, improving knowledge exchange and communications, engaging with the broader international financial architecture, and establishing a formal coordination mechanism. The MCFs aim to move from individual operations toward a system-wide approach, with specific milestones set for COP29, 2026, and beyond.

The document provides a roadmap for Brazil to lead international efforts in reforming the global financial architecture, promoting country platforms for investment, and addressing gaps in adaptation and nature finance. It emphasizes the need for the G20 to scale up resources for Emerging Markets and Developing Economies (EMDEs) and suggests that Brazil lead by example by structuring its own Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) through a functional country platform by 2025.

The document analyzes COP 28 outcomes for Africa, noting a gap between high-level agreements and the actual financial resources provided for adaptation and loss and damage. While it highlights the historic agreement to transition away from fossil fuels and new food system initiatives, it argues that the scale of funding remains insufficient for Africa's urgent needs.

India faces significant climate vulnerability, with adaptation investment needs estimated between USD 14 billion and USD 67 billion annually for 2015-2030. While the government utilizes a 'co-benefits' approach—integrating adaptation into broader development goals—this makes it difficult to track specific adaptation funding. Analysis of six states' updated State Action Plans on Climate Change (SAPCCs) reveals a collective annual investment need of INR 444.7 billion (USD 5.5 billion) for 2021-30. State governments are the primary drivers of adaptation finance, but their capacity is constrained by high debt levels and strict borrowing limits under the Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management (FRBM) Act. The report recommends that the 16th Finance Commission include adaptation variables in fund devolution and suggests using Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and blended finance to attract private capital, which is currently limited by data gaps and uncertain returns.

The GRP 2024–2029 Strategy focuses on three transformative opportunities: regenerative food systems, reimagined finance flows, and community-led resilience. The partnership aims to scale locally-led innovations and bridge the adaptation finance gap, which is currently five to ten times lower than required for developing countries. Key goals include transforming food and financial systems, scaling formal-informal collaborations, increasing transdisciplinary learning, and embedding resilience in the private sector. Geographically, the strategy prioritises sub-Saharan Africa, South and South East Asia, and Small Island Developing States in the Pacific and Caribbean.

The research paper compares the financial targets of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM GBF) with the UNFCCC's New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG). It argues that the CBD's approach—which combines the reduction of harmful subsidies, mobilization from diverse sources, and specific developed-to-developing country provisions—could serve as a model for the NCQG. The authors recommend a 10-year operational timeframe with five-year milestones, a quantum based on a subset of developing countries' needs, and a layered financial structure that includes the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies.

The document details the friction between developed and developing nations over the design, governance, and funding of the Loss and Damage Fund established at COP27. Key disputes include whether the fund should be a standalone UNFCCC entity or hosted by the World Bank, who should contribute (with the EU suggesting wealthier developing nations like China and Saudi Arabia), and whether the finance should be grants or loans. While a recommendation for a World Bank-hosted Financial Intermediary Fund was proposed, the US abstained due to concerns over legal liability and 'reparations', and the text lacks committed financial targets from developed countries.

The report finds that climate-related financial cooperation between MDBs and NDBs is currently limited, with approximately USD 7 billion in tracked flows from 2015 to 2022. There is significant divergence in how these institutions approach Paris alignment, with MDBs generally possessing more standardised targets and dedicated energy policies, while NDBs often anchor their goals in national NDCs. Key barriers to increased cooperation include currency risks, differing institutional mandates, and gaps in technical capacity. The authors recommend that MDBs optimise on-lending models, promote local currency instruments, and share expertise through platforms like Finance in Common to scale up climate investment.

The report finds limited existing climate cooperation between MDBs and NDBs and highlights a divergence in their progress toward Paris alignment. While MDBs generally have more standardized climate targets and energy policies, NDBs show greater variability and often align their goals with national determined contributions (NDCs). The authors identify operational barriers to on-lending, such as currency risks and institutional capacity gaps, and recommend optimizing operating models, clarifying climate mandates, and sharing expertise to scale global climate investment.