Search Climate Insights Directory

The World Resources Institute (WRI) scheduled a press call for November 1, 2022, to preview key themes for COP27. The event aimed to outline how world leaders can make progress on adaptation finance, loss and damage financial arrangements, and accountability for climate and nature commitments, while addressing food, water, and energy crises in vulnerable regions.

One year after COP26, progress on climate pledges is described as "mixed at best," with some advancements in renewable energy and net-zero targets countered by a resurgence in fossil fuel reliance due to the Russia-Ukraine war. While 24 countries updated their emissions targets and renewable capacity reached new heights, global fossil fuel subsidies nearly doubled in 2021. Financial commitments remain unmet, with developed nations still $17 billion short of the $100 billion annual goal for 2020. Efforts to curb methane and deforestation have seen expanded participation, but accountability for city-level net-zero pledges remains low due to a lack of reported emissions data.

The methodology for the Landscape of Climate Finance in Africa 2022 defines the scope, terminology, and data treatment used to capture climate finance flows across the continent. It utilizes a combination of public and proprietary data from sources such as BNEF, OECD, and the Climate Bonds Initiative, focusing on mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit finance. The document details sector classifications—ranging from energy systems to agriculture—and regional groupings based on UN standards. It also identifies significant data gaps, including the difficulty of tracking domestic budget expenditures, private sector investments in adaptation, and the lack of official reporting on Chinese investments in Africa.

The report outlines key messages from a community of practice workshop in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, focused on scaling and improving the effectiveness of adaptation finance in Africa. It provides specific recommendations for the public sector, private sector, and strategic partnerships to support the African climate agenda ahead of COP27.

The Center for International Environmental Law argues that COP26 failed to address the root causes of the climate crisis, specifically fossil fuels, and instead relied on 'false solutions' like carbon offsets. The statement highlights the exclusion of civil society and Indigenous Peoples from negotiations, the inadequacy of climate finance for adaptation and loss and damage, and the persistence of 'greenwashing' by corporate interests. While noting some progress in marginal alliances like the Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance, the author concludes that the official negotiated outcomes lack the ambition and equity required to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

The document clarifies the distinctions between Article 6.2 and 6.4 mechanisms, the role of 'corresponding adjustments' in preventing double counting, and the transition of the Kyoto Protocol's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) into the new framework. It highlights risks such as the potential for 2.8 billion 'dud' credits from transitioning CDM projects and the lack of mandatory cancellation for ITMOs under Article 6.2.

The document analyzes the 'innovation chain'—emergence, deployment, and widespread adoption—to explain why capital fails to flow to climate projects in developing countries. It details a strategy by the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to overcome these barriers through policy support, piloting new technologies, de-risking investments via blended finance, and strengthening domestic financial institutions.

The document argues that Africa faces an existential crisis due to climate change, yet adaptation finance remains critically low compared to mitigation. It identifies barriers such as the perception of adaptation as a public good, lack of bankable proposals, and inadequate climate data. To address these, the brief recommends demonstrating the business case for adaptation to attract private capital, strengthening government technical capacity, introducing adaptation levies, and lobbying for a distinct international goal for adaptation finance.

The success of COP26 is heavily dependent on resolving climate finance disputes, specifically the fulfillment of the $100 billion annual goal for developing countries. Beyond this, the agenda includes establishing a post-2025 quantified finance goal, increasing adaptation funding, and addressing loss and damage. Parallel to formal UNFCCC negotiations, private sector initiatives like the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero and political signals regarding the cessation of fossil fuel investments are expected to influence the outcome.

The document presents recommendations from African stakeholders to improve the quantum and quality of climate finance. Key priorities include establishing a global goal for adaptation finance, streamlining access to the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and creating national regulatory environments to unlock private investment. It emphasizes the need for grant-based finance to avoid exacerbating debt crises and calls for a broader definition of return on investment for adaptation projects.

The document outlines a framework for South African climate diplomacy, emphasizing the need to move beyond the UNFCCC to engage with the G7, G20, WTO, and IMF. It argues that the current global climate finance architecture is unfit for the needs of emerging economies, particularly regarding coal phase-outs and adaptation. The authors recommend a whole-of-government approach to secure 'package deals' that link higher emission reduction targets to concrete financial support, debt relief, and intellectual property waivers for green technology.

Based on a quantitative mapping of OECD data from 2014 to 2018, the document identifies five primary failures in climate adaptation finance for Africa: insufficient funding levels compared to mitigation and actual needs, a lack of strategic targeting toward the most vulnerable countries, over-concentration in agriculture and water sectors, low disbursement rates of committed funds, and an over-reliance on loans rather than grants.

The document argues that progress on loss and damage (L&D) finance has been stalled by disagreements over liability and compensation. It proposes a near-term 'solidarity-based' approach to unlock funding without requiring strict legal liability, while advocating for the eventual creation of a formal L&D mechanism within the UNFCCC. The authors emphasize that L&D finance must be additional to mitigation and adaptation funding and should be distributed based on a needs-based approach prioritizing the most vulnerable populations.

The document outlines a methodological plan to evaluate the effectiveness of adaptation finance in sub-Saharan Africa, specifically focusing on projects funded by multilateral climate funds and bilateral donors from the UK and Sweden. It proposes a theory of change to link financial inputs and project design to outcomes such as reduced climate risk and vulnerability. The protocol details a multi-pronged search strategy across academic and grey literature, and a synthesis approach combining meta-analysis, framework synthesis, and qualitative comparative analysis. However, the authors note that funding for the review was discontinued in March 2021, and the review will not be completed as described.

The Adaptation Benefits Mechanism (ABM) is a results-based financing tool that uses grants to repay commercial investors based on third-party valuations of adaptation benefits. Launched in 2019 and running through 2023, the pilot phase aims to deploy USD 50 million, with the African Development Bank leading implementation. The mechanism is particularly suited for land use and forestry projects and requires the involvement of project beneficiaries in design and monitoring. While applicable globally, Ghana and Cote d’Ivoire are identified as the most supportive countries for proposing pilot projects.

The African Risk Capacity (ARC) operates as a mutual insurance company and agency to help African Union members manage climate shocks through weather-index insurance. Since 2014, ARC Ltd has provided USD 720 million in coverage and paid USD 65 million in claims, primarily targeting the agriculture sector. Participation requires the use of Africa RiskView (ARV) software to define payout thresholds based on rainfall deviation. The program's viability depends on robust subnational climate data, government technical expertise in sovereign insurance, and high-level political awareness.

The Restoration Insurance Service Company (RISCO) is a social enterprise piloting a model in the Philippines and Vietnam to protect mangroves by monetizing their flood reduction and carbon sequestration values. RISCO generates revenue through annual fees paid by insurance companies for reduced risk exposure and the sale of blue carbon credits. The model aims to benefit coastal communities, asset owners, and insurance companies, with Kenya identified as a potential site for replication in Africa due to its mangrove cover and growing non-life insurance market.

The Agriculture and Climate Risk Enterprise (ACRE) provides index insurance to smallholder farmers in Africa, utilizing mobile technology and solar-powered weather stations to trigger rapid payouts for yield loss. By 2018, the program insured over 1.7 million farmers in Kenya, Tanzania, and Rwanda, covering crops such as maize and coffee against drought, storms, and excess rain. The model relies on a 50% premium subsidy shared between farmers and agribusiness partners, and leverages mobile money platforms like M-PESA to reduce operational costs and accelerate claims settlement. The document identifies critical success factors for scaling, including robust local climate data, progressive regulation, and the high adoption of mobile money across Africa.

Commercial banks in Africa face significant climate-related credit risks, with 49 banks across 14 countries exposed to USD 218 billion in risks. While these institutions lack developed climate strategies and remain risk-averse due to fiduciary duties, they possess the networks and capacity to mainstream resilience through partnerships with development banks and the adoption of adaptation taxonomies. Pan African Banks (PABs), such as Ecobank Transnational and Standard Bank, offer further potential for financial innovation and capital mobilization, despite a current lack of specific climate commitments.

The Abu Rawash Wastewater Treatment Plant project, costing USD 390 million, is funded through a combination of Egyptian government public budget (USD 237 million) and concessional debt from development finance institutions (USD 150 million from AfDB and AGTF). The project aims to enhance adaptive capacity and water supply through infrastructure expansion and institutional support. The document highlights that accessing such concessional finance requires robust climate data, strong sovereign credit ratings, and a supportive policy environment, noting that Egypt is one of six African countries receiving the majority of DFI water adaptation finance.