Search Climate Insights Directory

The report outlines a five-step framework for structuring adaptation-focused financial instruments: defining a resilience thesis, building a bankable pipeline, strategically engaging funders, cultivating local collaborations, and measuring impact. It highlights that while adaptation finance lags behind mitigation, private sector opportunities exist if perceived risks are managed through blended finance and simplified structures. Based on 17 adaptation-relevant instruments, the report notes that 12 successfully mobilized capital, totaling USD 1.2 billion, emphasizing the role of technical assistance and concessional capital in de-risking early-stage projects.

India's tracked green finance for mitigation reached INR 3,712 billion (USD 50 billion) per annum in FY 2021/22, a 20% increase from 2019/20. However, this represents only approximately 30% of the annual finance needed to meet the country's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). Mitigation finance is primarily domestic (83%), with clean energy receiving the largest share (47%). Adaptation finance saw a nearly threefold increase to INR 1,092 billion (USD 15 billion) per year, dominated by government budgetary expenditure (98%) and focused on disaster risk management. The report highlights significant investment gaps, particularly in electric vehicles and on-farm agricultural adaptation, and recommends the development of a green finance taxonomy and enhanced private sector mobilization.

The Climate Investment Planning and Mobilization Framework, developed by the NDC Partnership and the Green Climate Fund, outlines a six-stage process to bridge the gap between climate planning and implementation. It is structured into two main pillars: Investment Planning (Stages 1-3) and Finance Mobilization (Stages 4-6). The framework emphasizes the integration of financial planning with policymaking, the use of evidence-based decision-making, and the creation of enabling environments to attract public, private, and blended finance. It highlights the critical role of central coordination, stakeholder engagement, and iterative feedback loops to ensure that climate investments are socially just, sustainable, and aligned with Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), National Adaptation Plans (NAPs), and Long-Term Low-Emission Development Strategies (LT-LEDS).

The report examines how risk mitigation and transfer (RMT) instruments, such as political risk insurance and guarantees from development finance institutions (DFIs), help utility-scale renewable energy projects reach financial close in West and Central Africa. While these tools are critical for addressing offtaker and political risks, the authors argue they are insufficient to overcome structural macroeconomic barriers, including high sovereign debt and insolvent state-owned utilities. The report highlights innovative models, such as the re-deployable modular solar solution in Cameroon and the use of viable businesses as anchor loads in Ghana, as potential pathways for deployment in high-debt contexts.

The LoCAL+ programme aims to increase the climate resilience of approximately 3.49 million people across 85 local governments in Burkina Faso, Ivory Coast, Mali, and Niger. The initiative combines a performance-based climate resilience grant (PBCRG) system for public investments with Blended Finance Facilities to support local SMEs and producers' organisations. The programme focuses on seven key intervention areas: climate-adapted agriculture, forestry and ecosystem conservation, agroforestry, water and health, energy efficiencies and renewables, climate-resilient infrastructure, and coastal areas in Ivory Coast. It is implemented by the West African Development Bank (BOAD) as the Accredited Entity, with UNCDF as an implementing partner and various national agencies as executing entities.

The document highlights a significant gap in clean energy investment for emerging and developing economies (EMDEs), noting that only 15% of global investment reaches these regions (excluding China). It identifies the primary barrier as an elevated cost of capital—often two to three times higher than in OECD countries—driven by risks such as currency exchange, regulatory uncertainty, and asset expropriation. In Africa, the weighted average cost of capital for power sector projects is 15.6%, making decarbonization prohibitively expensive. The authors argue that COP29 must move beyond pledges toward granular, data-driven plans and bottom-up actions that improve local infrastructure and market performance to make EMDEs more attractive to risk-averse private capital.

The report analyzes private climate finance for Brazil's land use sector, focusing on thematic bonds, CBIOs, and BNDES operations. It finds that bioenergy and biofuels are the primary recipients of these flows, though thematic bond issuance for land use declined sharply between 2021 and 2023. The BNDES remains a central actor through direct credit, blended finance pilots, and the management of the Amazon and Climate Funds.

The report finds that while European DFIs are central to public climate finance, their current private capital mobilisation levels are low, with most lacking specific mobilisation targets. It identifies barriers such as low risk appetite from shareholders, a preference for transaction-level tools over institutional-level ones, and regulatory hurdles like the EU Taxonomy's limited applicability outside Europe. The document proposes 30 recommendations, including adopting broader mobilisation definitions, increasing on-selling of assets, and enhancing transparency through databases like GEMs to attract private investors.

Between 2021 and 2023, climate finance for land use in Brazil averaged US$ 17.1 billion per year, a 99% increase from the 2015-2020 period. Domestic sources provided 97% of these resources, with rural credit serving as the primary instrument (58% of total flows). While the crop sector was the largest recipient (74%), the native forest sector remained heavily dependent on the federal public budget. The report highlights a significant rise in 'loss and damage' spending due to extreme weather events and notes a sharp decline in the use of thematic bonds for land use after 2021.

South Africa is transitioning from a coal-dependent economy to a low-carbon one, utilizing frameworks like the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP). However, the implementation phase reveals a significant disconnect between national/international actors—who prioritize emission reductions and energy security—and local communities, who prioritize employment, basic services, and poverty alleviation. Key barriers include insufficient subnational institutional capacity, rigid financial mechanisms unsuitable for high-risk systemic change, and a lack of transparency in selecting project beneficiaries. The document specifically highlights green hydrogen as a potential new value chain, though its viability is currently hindered by high costs and the perception of just transition elements as additional financial burdens rather than core objectives.

South Africa is transitioning from just transition planning to implementation, facing a misalignment between national ambitions and local priorities. Key obstacles include limited subnational institutional capacity, inadequate financing mechanisms for transformative projects, and a lack of transparent decision-making in resource allocation. The document emphasizes that failing to address these gaps and local developmental needs may undermine public support for the energy transition.

The document examines South Africa's transition from coal, noting that while the country is a global leader in planning, it faces significant implementation hurdles. Key issues include a misalignment between the low ambitions of national government and foreign funders versus the high expectations of local communities and unions. The brief identifies limited local institutional capacity and inadequate conventional financing as major barriers. It specifically discusses green hydrogen projects, where social goals are often treated as secondary to cost and technical feasibility. The authors argue that transparent decision-making and addressing local priorities—such as basic services and food security—are essential to maintain public legitimacy and ensure the transition's success.

The proposal outlines a 48-month project implemented by the UNDP to establish a comprehensive National Adaptation Plan (NAP) for India. It aims to address critical gaps in cross-sectoral coordination, climate risk data, and adaptation finance. Key activities include developing sectoral adaptation roadmaps for nine priority areas, creating a national monitoring and evaluation (M&E) framework, and establishing a web-based repository for vulnerability studies. A significant portion of the project focuses on the private sector, aiming to develop investment strategies and business cases to overcome the perception that adaptation is a "high-risk and low-gain" investment. The project will also develop two project concept notes to access further GCF funding and map existing adaptation finance flows in India.

The report argues that China's agri-food system requires significant investment to achieve net-zero emissions and climate resilience, but currently faces a massive funding gap and a mismatch between existing green finance policies and the sector's needs. It advocates for the use of transition finance—including sustainability-linked loans, bonds, and blended finance—to mobilize private capital. The authors emphasize that a 'just transition' is essential to protect vulnerable smallholder farmers. Key barriers identified include poor climate information disclosure by companies and a lack of credible transition plans. The report recommends that regulators standardize GHG accounting for agriculture, mandate climate disclosures for large firms, and align agricultural subsidies with climate goals.

The report identifies a significant funding gap in China's agri-food climate transition, noting that global climate finance for the sector is only one-seventh of what is required. It argues that while public funds currently dominate, mobilising private capital through transition finance—including sustainability-linked loans, bonds, and blended finance—is essential. The document highlights barriers such as inadequate GHG emission disclosure among Chinese agri-food companies and a lack of credible transition plans. It recommends that regulators establish standardised accounting for agri-food emissions, support the development of entity-level transition plans, and align agricultural subsidies with climate goals to ensure a just transition for smallholders and SMEs.

The report assesses the four Vertical Climate and Environmental Funds (VCEFs)—the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Adaptation Fund (AF), Climate Investment Funds (CIF), and Green Climate Fund (GCF)—concluding that while they provide essential concessional finance, they are fragmented and often inefficient. It proposes a 'process integration' approach to shift from individual projects to country-driven investment platforms, recommends harmonizing accreditation and reporting across funds, and suggests expanding the use of diverse financial instruments like guarantees and local currency lending to better catalyze private capital in emerging markets and developing economies.

Climate finance for land use in Brazil averaged R$ 88.1 billion annually from 2021 to 2023, a 145% increase over the 2015-2020 period. Domestic sources provided 97% of these funds, with rural credit serving as the primary instrument (58% of total flows). While mitigation remains the dominant climate use (57%), there was a significant surge in 'loss and damage' payments, which grew 357% between 2021 and 2023 due to government indemnities for extreme weather events. The report highlights a heavy reliance on self-declared sustainable practices in rural credit and a decline in thematic bonds, while noting the critical role of the federal budget in supporting native forests.

In 2023, IDFC members committed $199 billion in green finance, a 31% decrease from 2022, largely due to currency depreciation in East Asia and the Pacific and the adoption of more conservative tracking methodologies. Climate finance dominated at 98% of total green finance, with mitigation accounting for 89% of that amount. Adaptation finance fell significantly to $10.5 billion, while biodiversity finance reached its lowest level since 2020 at $8.2 billion. The report emphasizes the role of public development banks (PDBs) in providing transformative finance and calls for the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) to integrate 'transformational criteria' to better catalyze private investment.

In 2021/22, Nigeria received USD 2.5 billion in climate finance, a 32% increase from 2019/20, yet this remains far below the estimated annual need of USD 29.7 billion. Public actors provided 70% of the funding, led by multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs), while private finance accounted for 30%, primarily driven by corporate investments in solar PV. Mitigation efforts, particularly in energy systems, dominated the landscape, while adaptation finance reached only USD 735 million, covering just 6% of annual needs. The report highlights a heavy reliance on debt-based financing, which is concerning given Nigeria's high debt-servicing costs. Key barriers include the high cost of capital, a lack of bankable projects, and data gaps. The authors recommend operationalizing the National Climate Change Fund, prioritizing anticipatory adaptation, and pursuing innovative financing such as green bonds and debt-for-climate swaps.

The report finds a positive trend in European pension funds' commitment to sustainable investing, with significant growth in the adoption of mitigation targets and climate risk management. However, a persistent gap remains between these commitments and actual real-economy impact, as pension funds rarely invest directly in projects and often hold fragmented indirect ownership. The analysis highlights that larger funds, those in net-zero coalitions, and funds in countries with strong regulatory frameworks—such as the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, and France—are leading the transition. Key challenges include the gap between asset ownership and management, the difficulty of transitioning passive investments, and limited capital flow to emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs).