Search Climate Insights Directory

The document argues that Brazilian municipalities, particularly small and medium-sized ones, face significant credit and technical barriers to financing infrastructure. It proposes the use of Pooled Financial Management Mechanisms (MFGCs) to aggregate demand and reduce risk, drawing on international examples from France, the Nordic countries, Mexico, India, and the Philippines. The brief identifies regulatory hurdles in Brazil, such as the Fiscal Responsibility Law, and recommends updating the legal framework to allow subnational consortia more autonomy in raising funds and improving governance to attract green and sustainable capital.

The document argues that Brazilian municipalities, particularly small and medium-sized ones, face significant financial and regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment. It suggests that subnational consortia can overcome these hurdles by adopting Pooled Finance Mechanisms (PFMs)—such as club deals, aggregation platforms, and bond banks—to access capital markets and attract green investment. The brief identifies a USD 1.3 trillion green investment opportunity in Brazil and recommends updating Law 11,107/2005 and the Law of Fiscal Responsibility to facilitate autonomous fundraising and improve governance for public consortia.

The document explains that human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, have increased average global temperatures by approximately one degree Celsius since 1880. It details the resulting impacts, including rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and more severe extreme weather events. The text outlines strategies for mitigation and adaptation, discusses the role of renewable energy and energy efficiency, and describes the efforts of the United States, corporations, and the United Nations to address the crisis.

The document assesses Thailand's air quality regulatory framework, noting that while some pollutants have decreased, national standards remain weaker than WHO guidelines. It identifies a 'siloed approach' to policymaking across different ministries as a primary barrier to enforcement and recommends the establishment of a single, national regulatory body to coordinate multi-sectoral air pollution mitigation.

The document assesses Thailand's air quality challenges, noting that while numerous Acts and Plans exist, enforcement is hampered by a siloed ministerial approach and a prioritization of economic growth over environmental health. It identifies key pollution sources including road transport, coal-fired power plants, industrial zones, and seasonal crop burning. The paper highlights successful past initiatives such as the phase-out of leaded gasoline and two-stroke motorcycles, and suggests the need for an overarching national agency to integrate air quality management across sectors.

The paper examines the GCF's 'direct access' modality, which allows developing country institutions to receive funding without international intermediaries. While 62 such entities were accredited by November 2020, 42 (67%) had not yet received project approval. The authors analyze four support mechanisms—the Readiness Programme, Project Preparation Facility (PPF), Simplified Approval Process (SAP), and Enhancing Direct Access pilot—finding that high costs, complex application processes, and restrictive funding rules create significant bottlenecks. The paper recommends automating 'kick-off' funding upon accreditation, streamlining the SAP, and allowing preparatory funds to cover internal staff time.

The report analyzes climate finance in South Africa for 2017-2018, tracking an annual average of R62.2 billion. It identifies a significant gap between current funding and the R8.9 trillion estimated by the IFC as necessary to achieve South Africa's Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) by 2030. Public finance averaged R22 billion annually, with a strong domestic preference, while private finance averaged R35.3 billion, focused exclusively on mitigation. The document recommends developing standardized climate finance definitions, improving public-private coordination, and scaling blended finance to leverage private capital.

The document outlines a request for USD 302,281.00 to enable the Tongan private sector, particularly MSMEs, to access climate finance. The program focuses on capacity building, identifying investment barriers, and developing a pipeline of bankable project concept notes. The Tonga Development Bank (TDB) serves as the Delivery Partner, aiming for GCF accreditation, while the Tonga Chamber of Commerce and Industry (TCCI) acts as the executing entity. Key activities include creating a sensitization communication strategy, conducting barrier assessments, and facilitating south-south cooperation with Vanuatu.

The Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) has established a four-year work programme (2020-2023) to scale up climate finance for its Borrowing Member Countries (BMCs). The strategy focuses on three main areas: public sector investment in water security, renewable energy, and resilient infrastructure; leveraging the private sector through financial sector transformation; and enhancing institutional capacity through GCF Readiness support. The pipeline includes regional programmes for financial transformation, Integrated Utilities Services (IUS) for energy, and water security, alongside single-country projects in The Bahamas, St. Kitts and Nevis, and Grenada. The CDB emphasizes the need for concessional financing to address high public debt levels exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The report argues that nature is central to both the emergence of and recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic. It proposes a sustainability dashboard focused on the planetary boundaries of climate and nature loss, identifying the transformation of the global food system as a primary priority to strengthen planetary resilience against future pandemics.

The Water Infrastructure Criteria under the Climate Bonds Standard provide a framework for certifying bonds that finance engineered, nature-based, or hybrid water infrastructure. To be eligible, assets must meet both mitigation and adaptation requirements. Mitigation is assessed based on net GHG emissions impact or, for desalination plants, a specific carbon intensity threshold of 100g CO2e/kWh. Adaptation and resilience are evaluated through a Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan, scored via a detailed scorecard covering allocation, governance, technical diagnostics, and specific requirements for nature-based solutions and desalination plants. The criteria exclude investments in fossil fuels, nuclear energy, mining, and water-driven energy like hydropower.

The document details the three-phase development of the Water Infrastructure Criteria, which aim to prevent 'greenwashing' in the green bond market by providing scientific standards for water-related investments. It covers built, nature-based, and hybrid infrastructure, with a specific focus on the newly added desalination criteria. The framework emphasizes a process-based approach to climate vulnerability assessments and sets a carbon intensity threshold of 100gCO2/kWh for desalination plants to align with the Paris Agreement.

The report argues that existing village development indices in Indonesia fail to adequately measure or reward environmental performance. To address this, the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) proposes the Indeks Desa Membangun Plus (IDM+), which adds 10 ecological indicators to the existing Indeks Desa Membangun (IDM). The report suggests using IDM+ as a basis for Ecological Fiscal Transfers (EFT), specifically through a mixed fiscal instrument approach in Berau Regency, East Kalimantan. This approach combines performance-based incentives via the Alokasi Dana Desa (ADD) with affirmative action funding for low-performing villages, potentially utilizing untapped reforestation funds (DBH DR).

The document outlines the structure and process for developing GCF Country Programmes, which serve as the foundation for prioritizing climate finance proposals. It details five mandatory components: country context, climate finance strategy, project priorities, institutional needs, and stakeholder engagement. The guide emphasizes alignment with national climate plans (such as NDCs and NAPs) and the role of Accredited Entities in implementing these priorities over four-year programming cycles.

The guide outlines the structure and requirements for GCF country programmes, which serve as the foundation for prioritizing climate projects and mobilizing finance. It details five essential components: country context, climate finance strategy, priority GCF projects, institutional needs, and stakeholder engagement. The document emphasizes alignment with national climate plans (such as NDCs and NAPs) and collaboration with Accredited Entities to transform priorities into funding proposals.

The African green bond market is nascent and underdeveloped, with cumulative issuances of less than 1% of global volumes between 2012 and 2019. While South Africa, Morocco, and Nigeria lead the drive through national frameworks and issuances, the market faces significant barriers including a lack of technical capacity, insufficient supporting regulation, and a dearth of fiscal incentives. As of October 2019, 17 bonds totaling over US$2 billion had been issued across six states, with approximately 35% being climate certified. Opportunities for growth lie in greening infrastructure and sustainable urban development, provided that local conditions are reflected in guidelines and project pipelines are improved.

The QGasSP project seeks to create a standardised, modular, and open-source tool to help national, regional, and local planning authorities quantify how spatial planning decisions affect greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The methodology focuses on three primary sectors: building energy use, transportation and infrastructure, and land use change and forestry (LULUCF). To ensure pan-European applicability, the tool will employ a hierarchical data structure, allowing users to start with European averages and refine results with national or local data. The project integrates this quantification process into the Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) framework to support evidence-based climate mitigation. The tool's effectiveness will be tested through four pilot case studies in Ireland (County Meath), Northern Ireland (Rathlin Island), Finland (Kymenlaakso region), and Scotland (Edinburgh).

The document analyzes the labor market crisis in Latin America exacerbated by COVID-19, highlighting the vulnerability of women, youth, and informal workers. It argues that the region's dependence on primary exports and low economic complexity increase its vulnerability to external shocks. To address this, the brief recommends transitioning toward 'green jobs' and a more complex productive matrix. Key proposals include investing in energy-efficient housing, nature-based solutions, female labor inclusion, digitalization to reduce informality, and aligning education with the requirements of a carbon-neutral economy.

The document argues that gender-blind climate interventions risk deepening inequalities and undermining resilience. It proposes a project cycle that begins with representative stakeholder committees and gender-disaggregated data collection to understand differential vulnerabilities. The guide details tools like 'problem tree' analysis and the 'resilience wheel' to design transformative solutions. It emphasizes the use of SMART and SPICED indicators to track progress, illustrated through five case studies in Cambodia, Tanzania, Malawi, Nigeria, and Ecuador, which demonstrate the 'double win' of achieving both climate goals and gender empowerment.

The report argues that the IDC's investment in MC Mining demonstrates a continued funding of unsustainable, climate-risky projects and highlights critical failures in the IDC's Responsible Investment Policy and due diligence processes. It details the environmental and social risks associated with MC Mining's operations in the Soutpansberg area, including threats to the Mapungubwe World Heritage Site and the Vhembe Biosphere Reserve. The document concludes that the IDC's lack of transparency and failure to integrate sustainability and human rights standards into its decision-making expose public funds to significant risks and undermine South Africa's climate goals.