Search Climate Insights Directory

The paper finds that the Adaptation Fund provides limited support for ecosystem-related activities, with only 15% of funding allocated to such projects as of 2016, and most of these focusing on human-centric ecosystem services rather than ecological resilience.

The study finds that adaptation finance is not consistently aligned with the Paris Agreement's goal of prioritising the most vulnerable nations. For bilateral donors, the relationship between vulnerability and both the probability of selection and the amount of finance allocated is concave, meaning that while vulnerability increases funding up to a point, the most vulnerable countries actually receive smaller allocations than their less vulnerable counterparts. Multilateral donors are found to be even less responsive to recipient need, although they do prioritise members of the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) in the allocation stage and the most vulnerable states specifically when providing 'principal-classified' finance.

The document identifies a "missing middle" in climate finance—a systemic gap where mobilized funds fail to reach local and subnational actors due to bureaucratic barriers, capacity constraints, and a preference for international intermediaries. It argues that the direct access modality is a critical tool for overcoming this gap by empowering national and subnational entities. The authors highlight that while the AF has pioneered direct access, the GCF remains dominated by Multilateral Implementing Entities (MIEs), with only 16% of approved funding channeled through Direct Access Entities (DAEs) as of March 2019. The paper recommends shifting toward a principle of subsidiarity, increasing grant-based financing, and holding MIEs accountable for transferring capacity to national institutions.

The report updates global climate finance estimates for 2015 and 2016, finding an annual average of USD 463 billion. While private investment remains the dominant source, particularly in renewables and the growing electric vehicle sector, the report highlights significant data gaps in tracking adaptation and energy efficiency. It also discusses the challenges of operationalizing Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement to ensure all financial flows are consistent with low-emission and climate-resilient development.

The report assesses the GCF's adaptation portfolio, finding it generally aligned with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) but lacking in areas like human health. It identifies a critical need for standardized guidelines on 'climate rationale' to distinguish adaptation from general development and recommends a flexible three-tier costing approach (total, incremental, and beyond incremental cost). The study also highlights the under-utilization of diverse accredited entities and the limited role of the private sector in adaptation projects.

The document argues that the Adaptation Fund is a unique and essential part of the international climate finance architecture that requires improved operating modalities to enhance climate resilience. It specifically highlights the insufficiency of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as a funding source and recommends exploring links to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement alongside diverse new revenue streams like national ETSs and carbon taxes.

The briefing contends that the distinction between adaptation and development projects is counter-productive and that adaptation should be viewed as 'doing development differently in response to climate change.' It proposes a framework for maximizing the impact of scarce adaptation finance by establishing strong climate rationales, building national adaptive capacity across four key areas, and shifting toward devolved decision-making to empower local communities.

The briefing argues that climate adaptation is currently undervalued and incorrectly viewed as a local problem, which hinders global ambition. It proposes a 'transboundary' approach to climate risk, recognizing that impacts in one country create risks in others through trade, biophysical flows, people, and finance. The authors review progress from COP23 and suggest that the Paris Agreement's mechanisms—such as the global stocktake and National Adaptation Plans—should be operationalized to track and manage these cross-border risks to avoid 'climate change contagion' in the global economy.

The report outlines strategies to expand green finance by improving climate risk disclosure, streamlining international finance architecture to better support national and subnational levels, and utilizing innovative financial instruments to mobilize private capital. It emphasizes the critical need for bankable project pipelines, particularly for cities and conservation projects, and the importance of standardized data to align investment with the Paris Agreement and NDCs.

Carbon Market Watch outlines recommendations for the three frameworks under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: cooperative approaches, the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), and non-market mechanisms. The organization emphasizes the need for robust accounting to prevent double counting, the integration of human rights safeguards, and the use of the SDM for results-based finance and transformational change.

The document outlines 14 key lessons for boosting low-carbon and climate-resilient investment. It highlights the role of fiscal policy in sustainable land use, the importance of government-backed assurances in Power Purchase Agreements to unlock debt finance, and the utility of public-private partnerships like the Global Innovation Lab for Climate Finance to develop bespoke financial instruments. Specific solutions mentioned include currency hedging to reduce renewable energy costs and guarantees for energy efficiency savings.

The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016, with 100 countries representing 67% of global greenhouse gas emissions having ratified it. COP22 and the first meeting of the CMA are tasked with developing operational rules for transparency, progress monitoring, and ramping up ambition to limit global temperature rise to well below 2 degrees Celsius. Key points of contention include the verification of national commitments and the insufficiency of pledges to meet the $100 billion climate finance goal for developing countries by 2020. South Africa has ratified the agreement and set an emissions reduction target of 398–614 MtCO2e for 2025–2030, though this is largely conditional on external assistance and complicated by a continued reliance on coal and budgetary restraints.

We Mean Business calls for the fulfillment of the $100 billion annual climate finance pledge by developed countries and the implementation of the 'Road Map to $100 billion'. The organization emphasizes that while public finance is crucial for trust and predictability, the transition to a low-carbon economy requires trillions in investment, necessitating a shift in the financial system to leverage private capital through green bonds, Green Investment Banks, and enhanced corporate reporting.

The briefing outlines five key priorities for climate finance at COP22: the roadmap to mobilize $100 billion for developing countries by 2020, the establishment of accounting modalities to define what constitutes climate finance, the development of systematic reporting formats for finance provided and received, the need to scale up and balance adaptation finance relative to mitigation, and the potential renewal of the Adaptation Fund's mandate to serve the Paris Agreement.

The report updates global climate finance data for 2013 and 2014, finding an annual average of USD 367 billion. It highlights the dominance of renewable energy and domestic investment, while noting a shift where developing countries began receiving more investment than developed countries in 2014. The document also identifies significant data gaps in adaptation and energy efficiency tracking.

The report finds that the CIF provides a unique, programmatic approach to climate finance that differs from the project-by-project model of the GCF. It has been the largest source of external concessional finance for Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), particularly in high-risk technologies like geothermal and concentrated solar power. The authors recommend keeping the CIF operational to maintain momentum and bridge investment gaps, suggesting it work complementarily with the GCF.

Carbon Market Watch outlines specific requirements for the three frameworks under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement: cooperative approaches, the Sustainable Development Mechanism (SDM), and non-market approaches. The organization emphasizes the need for robust accounting to prevent double counting and 'hot air' trading, the integration of human rights safeguards, and the principle of supplementarity to ensure domestic emission reductions are prioritized over the purchase of compliance.

The San Giorgio Group (SGG) met in February 2016 to discuss moving climate finance from diplomacy to implementation following the Paris Agreement. Key discussions focused on the need for better tracking methodologies for the USD 100 billion goal, the role of cities in climate action, the use of climate risk insurance in vulnerable countries, and the application of innovative financial instruments like green bonds and YieldCos to scale up Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The document presents the Transnational Climate Impacts (TCI) Index, which measures country-level exposure to climate risks transmitted across borders. It identifies four primary risk pathways—biophysical, finance, people, and trade—and argues that globalization makes even wealthy, low-vulnerability countries susceptible to transnational climate shocks. The authors advocate for integrating these risks into national adaptation plans and UNFCCC processes to enhance global cooperation and adaptation finance.

The document outlines how climate finance is essential for enabling countries to increase their climate ambitions and build resilience. It identifies four 'crunch issues' for the Paris outcome: determining who provides finance and at what levels, encouraging domestic mobilization of investment, balancing funding between mitigation and adaptation, and ensuring transparent reporting of financial flows.