Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details a comprehensive methodology for mapping green finance in India, defining the scope of 'green finance' to include climate finance and environmental objectives like biodiversity and resource conservation. It establishes a framework for categorizing financial flows by source (domestic/international, public/private), instrument (grants, debt, equity), and sector (clean energy, energy efficiency, clean transportation, and climate adaptation). The methodology employs a variety of data sources, including government budgets, OECD CRS, and project-level databases, while applying specific assumptions such as a 70:30 debt-to-equity gearing ratio and the use of Rio Markers for international public finance. A significant portion of the document is dedicated to the granular classification of on-farm agricultural adaptation activities, categorizing government schemes into 'absolute', 'lower bound', and 'upper bound' based on their adaptation relevance.

The paper argues that green technologies in renewable energy, sustainable agriculture, waste management, and green construction can significantly reduce youth unemployment in Africa. It highlights specific successes, such as Morocco's Noor Solar Complex and South Africa's REIPPPP, while noting that widespread adoption is blocked by financing gaps, currency volatility, and policy-implementation disconnects. The authors recommend targeted vocational training, blended finance models, and strengthened public-private partnerships to unlock these opportunities.

The document argues that green bonds are an under-utilised tool that could help Africa meet its estimated USD 2.8 trillion climate finance need by 2030. While the global green bond market reached approximately USD 2.8 trillion in 2023, Africa's share is less than 1%, representing only USD 5.1 billion. The paper highlights successful issuances in South Africa, Nigeria, and Zambia, while identifying key barriers such as low liquidity, inadequate regulation, and high transaction costs. It calls for stronger public-private collaboration and international support at COP29 to create enabling environments for green bond proliferation in Africa.

The briefing highlights a significant funding gap in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), where current climate finance flows represent only 0.5% of regional GDP, far below the 3.7% to 4.9% estimated by ECLAC to meet Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). While developed nations eventually met the USD 100 billion annual pledge in 2022, the LAC region's share of international finance (17% between 2016-2020) consists largely of loans (81%), exacerbating regional debt. Financing is heavily concentrated in Brazil, Mexico, Costa Rica, and Colombia, with a strong preference for mitigation over adaptation projects.

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 International Platform on Sustainable Finance (IPSF) updated the Common Ground Taxonomy (CGT) in November 2024, expanding the analysis to include 96 activities across five environmental objectives. The CGT serves as a voluntary technical tool to enhance the interoperability of sustainable finance standards between the EU and China, potentially lowering trans-boundary costs for green investments. The report details a scenario-based methodology for mapping activities using the International Standard Industrial Classification (ISIC) as a neutral code. While it identifies 76 climate mitigation activities and 20 non-climate activities with shared ground, it explicitly excludes 'Do No Significant Harm' (DNSH) criteria, minimum social safeguards, and climate change adaptation due to technical complexity and divergent regulatory approaches.

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.

FSD Africa is working to deepen African capital markets to reduce reliance on banks and external debt, leveraging an estimated $2 trillion in domestic assets. The organization employs a four-pronged strategy: policy and regulatory development, market infrastructure creation, product development (specifically GSSS bonds), and stakeholder convening. Key achievements include mobilising over $1.2 billion through 21 thematic bond transactions and establishing critical infrastructure like the Ethiopian Securities Exchange. Future priorities include carbon markets, sovereign debt management, and financing the energy transition.

The briefing identifies a $700 billion annual biodiversity finance gap and argues that current corporate reporting frameworks are too complex and resource-intensive to scale private investment. It proposes complementing comprehensive standards with simplified, verifiable metrics—specifically hectare-based measurements—to lower barriers to entry, enable peer comparison, and unlock new financial incentives for companies to contribute positively to nature.

The guidance outlines the operational requirements for Approved Verifiers to ensure the integrity of the Climate Bonds Certification mark. It details the verification processes for four certification types: Use of Proceeds (UoP), Assets, Non-Financial Entities, and Sustainability-Linked Debt (SLD). The document specifies a multi-stage methodology—comprising engagement, planning, risk assessment, testing, evidence gathering, and reporting—and mandates adherence to professional standards such as ISAE3000 or AA1000. It establishes strict independence and conflict-of-interest rules, requires professional indemnity insurance, and defines the oversight mechanisms used by the Climate Bonds Standard Secretariat to monitor verifier performance.

ClientEarth's response to CP24/12 advocates for mandatory climate disclosures aligned with TCFD and ISSB standards, specifically calling for an 'atmospheric viability test' for mineral companies to prevent stranded asset risk. The organization argues against voluntary sustainability-labelled debt disclosures, urging for contractually binding commitments to prevent greenwashing, and cautions against reducing issuer liability for forward-looking climate statements.

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.

The report finds that while climate finance in Africa grew by 48% to USD 43.7 billion in 2021/22, it remains severely insufficient, meeting only 23% of the annual needs required for NDC implementation. Public finance dominates the landscape, providing 82% of total flows, while private finance is heavily concentrated in energy systems and a small number of countries. The document highlights a critical 'trilemma' where climate-vulnerable countries are also debt-distressed and conflict-affected, further hindering their ability to attract investment. Key recommendations include scaling the use of guarantees, improving domestic capital market regulations, and enhancing the transparency and equity of voluntary carbon markets.

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 methodology for the Landscape of Climate Finance in Africa 2024 describes the framework used to identify and categorize climate finance flows. It employs a taxonomy to distinguish between mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefits finance across sectors such as energy, transport, and agriculture. The approach relies on a mix of public and proprietary data from sources like the OECD, BNEF, and the World Bank, while acknowledging significant gaps in domestic public expenditure tracking and private sector reporting. The document also details the classification of African countries by subregion and income status.

Climate finance in Africa grew by 48% between 2019/20 and 2021/22, reaching USD 43.7 billion, yet this remains only 23% of the annual funding required to meet 2030 NDC goals. Public finance dominates the landscape, providing 82% of total flows, while private finance is heavily concentrated in energy systems and a small number of countries. The report highlights a critical 'trilemma' where climate-vulnerable countries are often simultaneously debt-distressed and conflict-affected, further hindering their access to grants and affordable capital. Key recommendations include reforming domestic fiscal policies to remove fossil fuel subsidies, scaling the use of guarantees to de-risk private investment, and leveraging domestic institutional assets, such as pension funds, to reduce reliance on international debt.

The document details a conference focused on the marginalization of Africa within the global economic system, specifically regarding the legacy of structural adjustment and the current lack of representative governance in international financial institutions. It identifies critical barriers to African development, including inflated risk premiums that cost the continent over $74 billion annually and the failure of the Global North to deliver over $1 trillion in promised climate financing. The report proposes a tiered reform agenda: short-term priorities include debt cancellation and increased access to Special Drawing Rights; medium-term goals focus on improving credit ratings through better data and combating illicit financial flows; and long-term goals aim for greater representation in the IMF and World Bank. Additionally, it explores the potential for Africa to leverage its natural capital and critical minerals for the energy transition, while cautioning against new dependencies on China as the world shifts toward a multipolar order.

The document examines the evolution of G20 debt management, from the 2008 financial crisis to the COVID-19 pandemic, noting that global public debt reached $92 trillion in 2022. It critiques the Common Framework for Debt Treatments for slow implementation and proposes that South Africa's 2025 G20 presidency focus on strengthening this framework, establishing an African Debt Monitoring Mechanism, and enhancing debt transparency to support sustainable development goals.

The report highlights that China's steel industry requires at least 1.6 trillion yuan (approximately 220 billion USD) in fixed asset investment to achieve decarbonisation by 2050. While technical feasibility for zero-carbon steel exists, high costs remain a barrier. The document argues that transition finance, carbon pricing mechanisms like the EU's CBAM, and green public procurement are essential to drive investment toward deep decarbonisation technologies, such as low-carbon hydrogen, and to avoid 'carbon lock-in' as 78% of existing coal-based blast furnace capacity requires reinvestment by 2030.

The report highlights that China's steel sector requires at least CNY1.6tn (USD220bn) in fixed-asset investment for decarbonisation by 2050. While the labelled bond and loan markets have the capacity to provide this capital, current issuance from the steel sector is minimal, representing only 0.1% of the Chinese labelled bond market. The document recommends aligning provincial transition finance guidelines with national and international standards, encouraging the use of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission-reduction targets in sustainability-linked bonds (SLBs), and implementing green public procurement to stimulate demand for low-carbon steel.