Search Climate Insights Directory

The report argues that while Nigeria has comprehensive national adaptation frameworks, there is a significant gap between high-level policy and local implementation. It highlights that locally led adaptation (LLA) is already occurring through community-driven initiatives in biogas production, aquaculture, and erosion control, but these efforts are hindered by a lack of finance, technical capacity, and political will. The authors advocate for a shift from 'top-down' approaches to those that empower frontline communities to lead the design and monitoring of adaptation actions.

The document proposes a systematic classification framework to identify and screen climate resilience investments, aiming to bridge the gap between high-level resilience goals and capital market flows. It defines eligibility based on 'Substantial Contribution' to resilience while avoiding maladaptation and significant harm, categorizing investments into a white list, standardized checks, and further assessment. The framework is organized around seven themes: Resilient Agrifood Systems, Resilient Industry & Commerce, Resilient Cities, Resilient Nature & Biodiversity, Resilient Health, Resilient Societies, and Resilient Infrastructure.

The report identifies a significant financing gap for Colombia's climate goals and argues that a just transition (JT) requires dedicated investment in socio-economic mitigation, such as re-skilling and regional diversification. While 67% of climate finance currently comes from public sources, the report notes that the 2023 national budget is not yet aligned with JT priorities. It suggests leveraging private green portfolios, international aid, sovereign green bonds, and carbon tax revenues to bridge this gap, while recommending the creation of a social taxonomy to ensure investments are socially responsible.

Global investments in energy transition technologies reached a record USD 1.3 trillion in 2022, yet this remains insufficient to meet climate goals, with annual needs estimated at over USD 5 trillion. While renewable energy investments are growing, they are heavily concentrated in a few regions—primarily East Asia and the Pacific—and specific technologies like solar PV and wind. Conversely, fossil fuel investments continue to rise, and subsidies remain high, particularly in Europe and the MENA region. The report emphasizes the need for a fundamental shift in financing for the Global South, calling for more innovative public finance instruments, the mobilization of institutional capital, and a transition away from fossil fuel funding to ensure a just and inclusive energy transition.

Global energy transition investments reached a record USD 1.3 trillion in 2022, but this is less than one-third of the annual USD 5 trillion needed to meet the 1.5°C Scenario. While renewable energy investments grew to nearly USD 0.5 trillion in 2022, they remain heavily concentrated in solar and wind technologies and a few regions, primarily East Asia and Pacific. Developing and emerging markets receive a disproportionately small share of finance; for example, Sub-Saharan Africa received less than 1.5% of global investments between 2000 and 2020. The report emphasizes that private capital prioritizes low-risk, commercially viable projects, leaving a critical gap in less mature technologies and high-risk regions. It argues for a fundamental shift in public financing, moving beyond simple de-risking to provide more grants, concessional loans, and innovative instruments like local currency lending and green bonds to ensure a just and inclusive transition.

The report finds that dedicated outdoor air quality funding is critically low, representing less than 1% of total international development commitments. While there is a significant pool of funding with air quality co-benefits, the report argues for more explicit intentionality in project design. It highlights a geographic concentration of funds in Asia and a lack of investment in Africa. The document also notes a positive trend where funding for air quality projects exceeded fossil fuel-prolonging projects for the first time in 2021.

The report analyzes the 2022 reporting practices of 100 large EU companies, finding that while adoption is high, significant issues exist regarding the precision of legislation, the complexity of reporting forms, and the relevance of defined activities for many sectors. It highlights a discrepancy between the eligibility reported by financial and non-financial companies and recommends simplifying reporting requirements and clarifying key legal terms.

The document outlines a readiness proposal for Ecuador to overcome barriers in climate finance, specifically targeting the limited capacity of local financial institutions to integrate ESG standards, the lack of climate-resilient mechanisms in Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs), and institutional gaps in accessing international finance. The proposed solution involves four workstreams: strengthening local financial institutions' ESG integration, building government capacity for green bonds and debt-for-climate swaps, developing a National Green Taxonomy, and creating a strategic framework for climate-smart PPPs. The project will be implemented by the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) over 18 months, focusing on the Ministry of Economy and Finance (MEF) and the Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition (MAATE).

Armenia is seeking USD 197,031 from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) over 18 months to update its Country Cooperation Programme for the 2024-2027 replenishment round. The project, implemented by the Environmental Project Implementation Unit (EPIU) under the Ministry of Environment, aims to align climate funding with the updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) and the Long-term Low Emission Development Strategy. Key activities include a national readiness needs assessment, the development of a Green Finance Implementation Strategy and Action Plan for 2023-2027, and the design of a high-quality Simplified Approval Process (SAP) project concept note. The initiative seeks to address coordination gaps between strategic frameworks and limited private sector engagement in climate finance.

The report finds that while most thematic bonds meet standards, approximately 25% of green bonds and 6% of social and sustainability bonds priced in 2022 were excluded from Climate Bonds databases due to insufficient information or non-aligned Use of Proceeds (UoP). Key issues include the allocation of funds to general working capital in China, the inclusion of roads in social and sustainability frameworks in Japan, and inadequate building standards in the USA and Germany.

The Japanese green bond market continued to expand in 2021, led by financial institutions. Low-carbon buildings and energy are the primary use of proceeds. The market is characterized by high rates of external review and a preference for shorter maturity periods. Japan is also emerging as a leader in transition finance, supported by government guidelines and the introduction of sustainability-linked bonds. The Bank of Japan has introduced funding operations to support climate-aligned investments by financial institutions.

The Japanese green bond market continued to grow in 2021, led by financial corporates. Buildings and energy are the primary sectors for use of proceeds. The report also highlights the emergence of sustainability-linked and transition bonds, alongside a comprehensive suite of government guidelines and central bank initiatives to promote climate-related financial disclosures and transition finance.

The report evaluates transition planning among ASEAN companies in sectors like cement, steel, and chemicals against the Climate Bonds Initiative's 'Five Hallmarks' of a credibly transitioning company. It finds that while net-zero commitments are increasing, most plans are fragmented and lack the robust, costed, and science-based pathways necessary for a 1.5°C alignment. The document provides specific analysis of companies such as Siam Cement Group and PTT, and offers guidance on improving the credibility of sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) by ensuring they include material emission scopes and absolute targets.

The report finds that while Indonesian banks show high compliance with national sustainability reporting mandates (POJK 51/2017) and are increasing their green portfolios, they lack the capacity and frameworks to implement detailed climate-related financial disclosures. Benchmarking against TCFD reveals significant gaps in governance, strategy, risk management, and metrics, with no surveyed bank fully aligned. Climate-related impacts are not yet integrated into formal financial statements or risk assessments like the ICAAP, though there is a growing trend toward adopting green taxonomies.

The Government of Nicaragua is seeking a USD 733,082 grant to overcome fiscal constraints and institutional gaps that hinder the implementation of its low-carbon development goals. The proposal identifies two primary barriers: limited government capacity to integrate climate considerations into financial planning and the inability of local financial institutions to apply environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. To address these, the Global Green Growth Institute (GGGI) will implement four workstreams: developing a National Climate Finance Roadmap, preparing for sovereign Green, Social, and Sustainability (GSS) bond issuances, creating a debt-for-climate swap strategy, and 'greening' the domestic banking sector. The project aims to diversify funding sources beyond decreasing Official Development Assistance (ODA) and high-cost debt, targeting a 24-month implementation period.

The policy brief proposes a framework for national loss and damage facilities in Africa to manage climate-induced losses. It distinguishes between risk finance for avoidable/unavoided risks and curative finance for unavoidable risks, suggesting a diversified funding model including philanthropic funds, multilateral grants, and innovative levies. The author illustrates the need for such facilities through case studies of extreme weather in South Africa, Mozambique, and Malawi, as well as a slow-onset drought in Cape Town, highlighting gaps in current disaster response and the necessity of integrating knowledge development, resilience building, and formal compensation mechanisms.

The document argues that climate finance for Africa is grossly insufficient, with an estimated annual shortfall of $112 billion for the 2020-2030 period. It calls for a total commitment of $1.3 trillion from rich countries to cover adaptation, mitigation, and loss and damage, while advocating for the use of natural gas as a transition fuel and the reform of the global financial architecture.

Reclaim Finance warns that sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) are frequently used as instruments for greenwashing, allowing highly destructive companies to label debt as sustainable despite making only marginal efforts toward climate transition. The organization cites HSBC's inclusion of bonds linked to the EACOP project as an example of this risk.

The report examines the growth of green bonds in emerging markets, identifying critical success factors such as sound regulatory frameworks, investor demand, public sector participation, and macroeconomic stability. It details barriers including underdeveloped capital markets, a lack of bankable projects, and the risk of greenwashing. The document provides a five-step issuance process and analyzes the roles of development banks and national governments in catalyzing markets. Case studies on India and Kenya illustrate different stages of market readiness, from a corporate-led leader (India) to a nascent market (Kenya), offering tailored policy advice to enhance sustainable finance flows.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of the climate finance landscape in Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, detailing the mechanisms used to fund climate action. It analyzes the roles of multilateral funds (such as the GCF and GEF), bilateral aid, national budgets, and emerging private sector instruments like green bonds and blended finance. The document highlights significant funding gaps, particularly for adaptation, and recommends strengthening institutional frameworks, adopting climate budget tagging, and improving technical capacity to develop bankable projects.