Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that development finance institutions (DFIs) cannot achieve full alignment with the Paris Agreement if they only focus on direct project financing, as substantial portions of their finance are channeled through financial intermediaries. It proposes a phased alignment strategy combining subproject-level criteria for mitigation and adaptation with institutional-level requirements for climate governance and transparency.

The Centre for Environmental Rights, acting for groundWork, submitted a formal objection on 18 June 2021 to the Water Use Licence (WUL) application for the Nseleni Independent Floating Power Plant (NIFPP) at the Port of Richards Bay. The objection argues that the 12-page application is 'woefully deficient and incomplete,' failing to provide necessary data on water resource impacts, climate change, and the full scope of associated infrastructure to allow for an informed decision.

The GCF's Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) assessed four pilot RFP programmes: Enhanced Direct Access (EDA), Micro-, Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (MSME), Mobilizing Funds at Scale (MFS), and REDD+ Results-based Payments (REDD+). The assessment concludes that while the RFPs are relevant to the GCF mandate and country needs, they have not been used effectively as a modality. Key failures include a lack of incentives for proponents, an inability to attract new accredited entities, and a project cycle that remains as complex and lengthy as the regular Proposal Appraisal Process (PAP). The REDD+ RFP was the most successful due to its tailored process and specialized expertise. The IEU recommends establishing the RFP as a formal institutional modality with standardized processes, transparent topic selection based on portfolio gap analysis, and incentives such as simplified accreditation.

The authors warn that unilateral solar geoengineering research, particularly by the United States, risks deterring fossil fuel mitigation and concentrating power among elites. They argue that any such research must be multilaterally governed under the United Nations and preceded by inclusive public deliberations to avoid the militarization of planetary-scale climate interventions.

The LEAF Framework is a US$ 959.9 million initiative led by the African Development Bank (AfDB) to expand access to solar home systems, green mini-grids, and commercial and industrial (C&I) solar solutions across six African countries. The program seeks US$ 170.9 million from the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to provide concessional partial credit guarantees, subordinated debt, and technical assistance to de-risk the DRE sector and mobilize local currency financing. Expected impacts include the installation of 386MW of generating capacity, the reduction of 28.8 million tCO2e over the systems' lifetimes, and providing green energy solutions to 1.18 million households and businesses.

The GCF Secretariat report for the first trimester of 2021 highlights a record funding approval of USD 1.2 billion at a single Board meeting (B.28) and a portfolio implementation rate of 73%. Key priorities include the 'DAE Action Plan' to increase funding for Direct Access Entities, the development of a Private Sector Strategy to catalyze adaptation finance, and the implementation of the 'GCF People Plan' to enhance institutional capacity. The report also details a long-term vision for collaboration with the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and efforts to secure privileges and immunities through a potential relationship with the United Nations.

The document introduces a series of briefs examining nature-based solutions (NbS), arguing that while NbS offer alternatives to fossil fuel-based infrastructure and provide climate and biodiversity benefits, there is a lack of critical reflection on their social and economic sustainability. The series aims to address how NbS can be implemented without reinforcing existing inequalities or creating 'winners and losers'.

The report identifies key 'catalyst' goals that drive progress across the entire 2030 Agenda in Sweden, while highlighting specific trade-offs where progress in one goal hinders another. It emphasizes that while most interactions are positive, targeted interventions are needed for goals that receive little systemic support and for resolving critical conflicts, particularly those involving energy, biodiversity, and economic growth.

The report presents survey data from 922 registered U.S. voters, revealing broad support for various climate-friendly energy and conservation policies, though opinions on economic impacts and the urgency of federal action remain sharply divided along political lines.

The document highlights the rapid degradation of Africa's natural resources and advocates for a financing strategy for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Agenda that combines the mobilization of new resources with the removal of subsidies that drive biodiversity loss. It suggests that conservation targets should be linked to international climate goals via nature-based solutions and that 'green' finance mechanisms, such as debt-for-nature swaps, be integrated into post-pandemic economic stimulus packages for African nations.

The 2021 State of Cities Climate Finance report finds that annual urban climate finance averaged USD 384 billion in 2017/2018, which is significantly lower than the estimated annual need of USD 4.5 to 5.4 trillion. Investment is heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving developing regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia severely underfunded. The report emphasizes a critical gap in adaptation and resilience finance, which accounts for less than 10% of urban climate finance. To bridge this gap, the report recommends strengthening municipal finance capacities, aligning city and national climate policies, and utilizing innovative financial instruments like blended finance and green procurement.

The 2021 report on the state of urban climate finance reveals a significant gap between current investments and the trillions of dollars needed for urban climate action. While global urban climate funding averaged 384 billion USD per year in 2017/2018, these flows are heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving rapidly urbanizing areas in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia severely underfunded. The report emphasizes that mitigation efforts, particularly in transport and buildings, dominate current spending, while adaptation and resilience receive less than 10% of funding. To bridge this gap, the document outlines 'enabling conditions' across national, city, and climate-specific levels, urging a systemic approach to align planning, budgeting, and policy to attract both public and private investment.

The report finds that while urban climate finance averaged 384 billion USD annually in 2017/18, this is far below the estimated annual need of 4.5 to 5.4 trillion USD. Funding is heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, with severe deficits in developing regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, and a critical lack of investment in adaptation and resilience, which accounts for less than 10% of tracked project data. The document argues that cities must act as both 'providers' of green infrastructure and 'guardians' of regulatory standards to attract private and public capital, requiring stronger alignment between municipal and national climate policies.

The 2021 report by the Cities Climate Finance Leadership Alliance (CCFLA) finds that annual urban climate finance averaged US$ 384 billion in 2017/2018, which is significantly lower than the estimated requirement of US$ 4.5 to 5.4 trillion. Investment is heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, with severe underfunding in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Mitigation efforts, particularly in sustainable transport and buildings, dominate the funding landscape, while adaptation and resilience receive less than 10% of project-level finance. The report emphasizes that cities act as both providers of infrastructure and administrators of regulations, and recommends strengthening municipal financial capacities, aligning local and national climate policies, and utilizing blended finance to bridge the investment gap.

The 2021 report on the state of cities climate finance reveals a significant gap between current investment levels and the trillions of dollars needed for urban climate action. While global urban climate finance averaged 384 billion USD annually in 2017/2018, funding is heavily concentrated in OECD countries and China, leaving developing regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia severely underfunded. The report emphasizes a critical shortage in adaptation and resilience funding, which accounts for less than 10% of urban climate finance. It argues that mobilizing further investment requires 'enabling conditions' across national, city, and climate-specific levels, urging governments and international financial institutions to provide predictable funding and technical support to help cities transition to sustainable development paths.

The report estimates that an average of USD 384 billion was invested annually in urban climate finance during 2017-2018, a figure significantly lower than the estimated annual need of USD 4.5 to 5.4 trillion for low-emission and resilient urban infrastructure. Mitigation efforts, particularly in sustainable transport and green buildings, dominate the landscape, while adaptation finance remains severely underfunded, representing only 9% of tracked project-level data. The analysis highlights a geographic imbalance, with the majority of finance flowing to China and developed economies, while regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia remain critically underfunded. Key barriers to scaling this finance include low creditworthiness of city governments, a lack of bankable projects, and institutional restrictions on local borrowing.

The report establishes a conceptual framework for urban climate finance, emphasizing that mobilization depends on the alignment of country-specific, city-specific, and climate-specific enabling conditions. It details the five roles city governments play—consumer, provider, fundraiser, regulator, and champion—and argues that a lack of administrative capacity, fragmented authority, and limited revenue sources in developing countries create significant barriers. The document recommends integrating climate considerations into all levels of city planning (strategic, spatial, capital investment, and budgetary) and suggests using carbon pricing, land-value capture, and conditional intergovernmental transfers to close the urban financing gap.

The IAI Scientific Agenda, adopted in June 2021, establishes a framework for scientific research on global environmental change (GEC) in the Americas. It defines the primary objective of the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI) as advancing comparative studies that exceed national program scopes to improve the region's ability to sustain itself and cope with GEC. The agenda is structured around four interrelated research themes—human dimensions, climate variability, ecosystems/biodiversity, and atmospheric/oceanic modulations—and is designed to be revised every 3-6 years in alignment with the IAI's Strategic Plan.

The report assesses the impact of China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) on African infrastructure, economic growth, trade, and debt sustainability. While finding that Chinese investment helps close the infrastructure gap and can boost GDP, the authors note risks including debt distress in specific countries, environmental degradation, and the crowding out of local manufacturing by Chinese imports. Case studies in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Nigeria demonstrate positive outcomes in transport and energy, though the failure of Nigeria's NIGCOM satellite highlights risks of using the continent as a testing ground. The report concludes that benefits generally outweigh costs, provided African nations improve project management and negotiate more symmetrical trade and loan terms.

The document argues that while nature-based solutions (NbS) are increasingly integrated into global climate and biodiversity policies, there is a critical lack of research and reflection on their social and economic sustainability. It highlights risks such as 'green gentrification,' where market-driven NbS prioritize high-income groups and displace vulnerable populations. The authors note a significant geographic imbalance in NbS research, which is dominated by high-income countries despite the high vulnerability of Small Island Developing States and lower-income countries. Financially, NbS receive a small fraction of total climate finance, with challenges including the difficulty of comparing NbS costs to 'grey' infrastructure and a lack of private sector incentives for adaptation. Finally, the document addresses the complexities of 'scaling-up' NbS, noting that misinterpreting spatial, temporal, and institutional scales can lead to suboptimal outcomes for human-environmental systems.