Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates 18 updated NDCs from non-Annex I countries using a new Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) framework focused on needs, design, and credibility. While some countries have improved their quantification of finance needs and integration with national plans, the report finds that most NDCs still lack the granular cost estimates and detailed implementation roadmaps necessary to effectively signal investment opportunities to private and public capital.

The report analyzes gender inequalities in ten target countries to integrate gender equality and social inclusion (GESI) into the Global Green Bond Initiative (GGBI). It identifies systemic barriers—including gendered divisions of labor, educational gaps, and limited access to finance and property—that reduce women's resilience to climate change. The document outlines a strategy to mainstream gender into green bond issuances through gender-responsive policies, the use of gender-specific KPIs, and the appointment of gender experts to ensure equitable benefit-sharing and increased women's leadership in climate finance.

The report analyzes the 2024 Chinese GSS+ bond market, noting that while cumulative issuance has exceeded $500 billion, annual growth in 2024 slowed due to a decline in financial institution activity. Green bonds remain dominant, though social and sustainable bonds saw significant growth. The report highlights a gap between domestic issuance and international CBI standards, particularly in sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs), and examines the potential for GSS+ financing in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area.

As of Q1 2025, the cumulative aligned GSS+ debt volume reached USD 5.9 trillion, with green bonds remaining the dominant theme. While Q1 2025 saw a 17% year-on-year decline in volume compared to Q1 2024, development banks achieved a record quarterly volume of USD 63.6 billion. The market is led by supranationals and the USA, France, and China as the primary country sources.

By the end of 2024, China's cumulative aligned GSS+ volume reached USD 555.5 billion, making it the fourth largest source globally. While green bonds continue to dominate, representing 80% of cumulative aligned volume, the market saw a 4% decrease in total aligned volume in 2024 to USD 84.6 billion, largely due to a 33% drop in issuance from financial corporates. The report highlights a significant growth in aligned social and sustainability (S&S) volumes, which rose 316% year-on-year to USD 15.7 billion. However, sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs) face severe integrity challenges, with only three Chinese deals achieving alignment with Climate Bonds methodology. The document also spotlights the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area as a key region for GSS+ growth and details recent policy shifts, including the February 2025 Sovereign Green Bond Framework and the Multi-Jurisdiction Common Ground Taxonomy.

The document outlines a comprehensive framework for tracking global climate finance, focusing on real-economy investments in mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit activities. It defines a multi-layered taxonomy covering finance origins (domestic, international, indeterminate), actors (public, private, third-sector), and financial instruments. The methodology emphasizes a conservative approach to avoid double counting and carbon lock-in, utilizing a mix of primary project-level data and secondary market-sizing benchmarks from sources like the IEA and BNEF. Key 2025 updates include the integration of Luxembourg Green Exchange bond data, a new project-level hydrogen investment dataset, and the first-time inclusion of 2- and 3-wheeler electric vehicle sales in China and India.

The report analyzes the complementary roles of VCEFs, MDBs, and NDBs in the climate finance architecture, focusing on financial instruments like guarantees, equity, and local currency lending. It identifies systemic barriers such as complex accreditation and slow approval processes and proposes a framework for non-financial collaboration through country platforms, technical assistance, and the creation of enabling policy environments. The document provides a set of short- and mid-term recommendations to harmonize metrics, simplify due diligence, and unlock the potential of NDBs to increase the flow of climate finance to emerging markets and developing economies.

The Global Resilience Partnership (GRP) Indicator Guidance 2024-2029 establishes a standardized monitoring and evaluation framework for its grantees and partners. The framework is structured around four core indicators (CORE1-4) and three thematic work areas: Innovation (INN1-6), Knowledge (KNO1-3), and Policy (POL1-3). Core indicators track people supported, investments mobilised, people more resilient, and organisations supported. The guidance specifies mandatory reporting requirements, data calculation methods, and disaggregation standards, particularly for sex, age, and disability. It defines 'resilience' as the ability to persist in crises, adapt to risks, and transform positively. The document also aligns these metrics with USAID and UK ICF indicators to ensure international reporting compatibility.

The document identifies significant barriers preventing Indonesian local governments from accessing climate finance, including the inability to directly access international funds and a lack of technical expertise in project preparation. It suggests that Indonesia can unlock over USD 3 billion in potential climate finance by strengthening institutional capacity, improving the 'bankability' of projects through comprehensive feasibility studies and ESG standards, and utilizing blended finance and public-private partnerships. The brief highlights specific transport projects in Jakarta, Bandung, Makassar, Medan, and Semarang, noting a heavy reliance on central government funding.

The document argues that while Africa possesses immense renewable energy potential, over 600 million people lack electricity, and only 2% of global renewable energy investments in the last two decades have gone to the continent. It identifies critical barriers to private sector engagement, including currency mismatch, regulatory instability, and inadequate grid infrastructure. Using Nigeria as a case study, the report highlights the success of off-grid solar solutions compared to the struggling privatised on-grid sector. It recommends institutionalising predictable policies, expanding innovative finance like green bonds and blended finance, and investing in grid-compatible infrastructure and local technical capacity to accelerate the energy transition.

The document outlines how financial institutions can integrate nature-based solutions (NBS) into their strategies to address systemic risks from nature loss, which affects over half of global economic sectors. It identifies three strategic domains for NBS opportunities: risk mitigation and portfolio resilience, sustainable financial growth, and emerging market innovations. To overcome barriers such as lack of standardized metrics and high transaction costs, the guide recommends using innovative instruments like sustainability-linked loans and green bonds, while emphasizing the need for science-based impact measurement and reformed incentive structures.

The document examines the integration of climate-resilient budgeting (CRB) and green budgeting (GB) into Nigeria's national financial frameworks, specifically focusing on the role of the Federal Ministry of Budget and Economic Planning (FMBEP). It analyzes the impact of Nigeria's 2023 ministerial restructuring, identifies gaps in current policy implementation, and compares Nigeria's approach with other developing nations like Ethiopia, Kenya, Uganda, and Nepal.

The Hong Kong sustainable debt market saw a decline in aligned GSS+ volume in 2024 to USD 10.8bn, primarily driven by a 54% drop in green bond issuance. However, social and sustainability bonds grew, and Hong Kong maintained its position as the largest arranging hub for international GSS+ bonds in Asia. The HKSAR Government continues to dominate the local market and lead the Asia-Pacific region in cumulative government green issuance. Key policy developments include the launch of the Hong Kong Taxonomy for Sustainable Finance and new climate-related disclosure requirements effective January 2025.

The document outlines a framework for mobilizing capital to reduce methane emissions and flaring in the oil and gas sector. It details how to structure debt instruments—such as green, sustainable, and sustainability-linked bonds—to prioritize emission reduction projects. The guide provides a comprehensive list of eligible activities, a hierarchy for quantifying emissions, and specific KPI and Sustainability Performance Target (SPT) matrices. It emphasizes the role of National Oil Companies (NOCs) and provides safeguards against 'greenwashing,' including requirements for third-party verification and rigorous reporting standards.

The document argues that while methane abatement is a cost-effective near-term strategy to limit global warming, capital deployment in the oil and gas sector is significantly lagging behind the targets required for the IEA's Net Zero Emissions by 2050 Scenario. It proposes a framework for using use-of-proceeds (UoP) bonds, key performance indicator (KPI)-linked bonds, and conventional debt with methane-related covenants to bridge this investment gap. The authors highlight the critical role of National Oil Companies (NOCs) and the need for credible, science-based guardrails to mitigate greenwashing and fungibility risks.

The Guidance for Including Methane Abatement in Oil and Gas Debt Structuring offers a framework for using debt capital markets to fund emissions reductions in the oil and gas sector. It specifically targets National Oil Companies (NOCs) and independent producers, providing detailed criteria for qualifying projects in use-of-proceeds (UoP) instruments and defining core and secondary key performance indicators (KPIs) for KPI-linked instruments. The document emphasizes the need for measurement-based quantification, external verification by subject matter experts, and guardrails to prevent greenwashing and 'transferred emissions' during asset mergers and acquisitions.

The report analyzes organic waste management models in Indonesia and Brazil, finding that decentralized, community-based, and household-level systems often offer greater cost-efficiency (lower Levelized Cost of Waste Management) than large-scale centralized projects. While private operators achieve economies of scale, community groups face severe financial pressure due to low operational margins and reliance on short-lived assets. The study recommends holistic policy approaches, legal recognition for informal workers, and the integration of co-benefits like job creation and methane reduction to attract more diverse funding, such as green bonds and carbon credits.

The document outlines the operationalization of Indonesia's Sustainable Finance Committee (SFC) under Law No. 4/2023. It proposes a three-tier governance structure involving the Ministry of Finance, Bank Indonesia, and the Financial Services Authority (OJK) to bridge institutional silos and align national climate targets with financial market mechanisms. The paper emphasizes the need for a formal Government Regulation to ensure the SFC's authority, the creation of a centralized data platform for ESG transparency, and the use of sectoral coalitions to co-create bankable financial solutions for priority sectors like energy and transport.

The report examines the integration of finance within National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) across 59 developing countries. It finds that while most NAPs include dedicated finance sections and rely heavily on international public funding, there is a significant gap in detailed costing and the mobilization of private-sector finance. The authors recommend that countries move toward more investment-oriented NAP documents, implement climate-resilient fiscal planning, and adopt tailored financing strategies—particularly for Least Developed Countries (LDCs)—to bridge the adaptation finance gap.

The document examines the critical role of African IFIs in bridging the continent's infrastructure gap to enable the AfCFTA. It highlights a significant annual financing need of $130–$170 billion, with transport being the most deficient sector. While IFIs like the AfDB, AFC, and Afreximbank have invested billions, the author argues that financing still relies too heavily on governments with limited fiscal space. The brief recommends establishing a results-oriented coordination model and a dedicated agency to improve project bankability to better attract private institutional investors.