Search Climate Insights Directory

Between 2010 and 2014, Kiribati received US$30.5 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change objectives, with a majority supporting mitigation. An additional US$81.7 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits. The primary contributors were Australia, the United Arab Emirates, and the Global Environment Facility, with funding concentrated in environmental policy and solar energy.

Between 2010 and 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands received US$7.9 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with the Global Environment Facility and Australia as the primary sources. Mitigation activities received the largest share of this funding (50.8%), followed by adaptation (44.4%).

Between 2010 and 2014, Nauru received US$5.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change objectives, with the largest contributions coming from the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Australia, and the European Union. Mitigation activities received the highest share of this funding at 50.7% (US$2.7 million), followed by adaptation at 36.1% (US$1.9 million). The GEF's funding focused on biodiversity, Australia's on environmental research, and the EU's on disaster prevention and preparedness.

Between 2010 and 2014, Niue received US$7.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with the Global Environment Facility and Australia as the primary contributors. Mitigation activities received the largest share of this funding (56.7%), while an additional US$20.9 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits.

Between 2010 and 2014, Papua New Guinea received US$41.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically for climate change, with a majority (60.6%) supporting mitigation. An additional US$147.4 million in ODA provided climate co-benefits. Major donors included Australia, Japan, the European Union, and the Adaptation Fund. From January 2015 to September 2016, further allocations were made via the Pilot Program for Climate Resilience (US$25 million), the Global Environment Facility (US$2.84 million), and the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (US$3.8 million).

Between 2010 and 2014, the Solomon Islands received US$42.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a primary focus on adaptation. Major contributors included the Global Environment Facility, Japan, and the Adaptation Fund, with funding directed toward disaster prevention, forestry, and water policy. Additionally, the country received US$6.70 million for solar power development between 2015 and 2016.

Between 2010 and 2014, Timor Leste received US$102.5 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a strong emphasis on adaptation and water-related infrastructure. Japan, Australia, and the Least Developed Countries Fund were the primary contributors, focusing on irrigation, water and sanitation, and environmental policy respectively.

Between 2010 and 2014, Tonga received US$67.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a majority (59.7%) supporting mitigation. The primary contributors were Japan and the Climate Investment Funds (CIFs), with significant funding directed toward renewable energy and environmental policy. Additionally, Tonga was allocated US$2.64 million from the Global Environment Facility for a renewable energy project between January 2015 and September 2016.

Between 2010 and 2014, Tuvalu received US$37.9 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a significant portion dedicated to renewable energy. Major contributors during this period included New Zealand, the United Arab Emirates, and the Global Environment Facility. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Tuvalu was allocated US$36 million from the Green Climate Fund for coastal adaptation and US$2.64 million from the Global Environment Facility for national energy targets.

Between 2010 and 2014, Vanuatu received US$49.4 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with a majority supporting mitigation. The primary sources of this funding were the Global Environment Facility, Australia, and the United Arab Emirates, focusing on environmental policy, renewables, and disaster preparedness. Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Vanuatu received further allocations from the Green Climate Fund, the LDCF, and the Scaling Up Renewable Energy Program.

The document argues that active participation by under-represented groups, particularly women, is essential for creating just and sustainable climate adaptation policies. It emphasizes that positive change requires conscientious action rather than mere intention, as 'gender blind' processes often reinforce existing inequities. To achieve this, the brief provides a 'toolbox' of guidelines for SEI-US trainers divided into three phases: starting the conversation (e.g., ensuring diversity among trainers), creating an inclusive learning environment (e.g., selecting accessible locations and prioritizing sanitation), and monitoring and evaluation (e.g., measuring the quality, not just the quantity, of participation).

The document analyzes the precarious state of Colombia's coal industry, which faces declining global demand, falling prices, and increasing domestic resistance. It details how the industry has shifted from a 'development locomotive' narrative to one linking extraction to the financing of peace processes. The paper highlights a significant shift in opposition strategies, moving from protests to institutional channels like 'acciones de tutela' and local consultations, which have empowered the Constitutional Court to challenge mining governance. In response, coal companies have increased spending on public relations, formed the Asociación Colombiana de Minería (ACM) to strengthen lobbying, and accused the judiciary of 'judicial activism'. The authors argue that a successful energy transition requires separating coal from other minerals and hydrocarbons in public discourse and developing alternative development models for affected regions.

The report examines the conflict between the EU Water Framework Directive's environmental goals and Sweden's reliance on hydropower for approximately half of its electricity. It details efforts by the Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management (SwAM) and the Swedish Energy Agency (SEA) to create a balanced national strategy, including a proposed cap on annual production loss to define 'significant adverse effect'. The document also reviews the Water Activity Review (WAR) recommendations, guidance for identifying Heavily Modified Water Bodies (HMWBs), and proposed financing mechanisms for environmental upgrades.

The document argues that gender inequality and unequal power relations frequently exclude women from environmental decision-making and the benefits of development programmes. It emphasizes that gender intersects with other vulnerabilities, such as disability and class, and calls for the integration of disaggregated gender data into technical models and climate finance to ensure equitable outcomes in the energy transition and natural resource management.

Between 2010 and 2014, Fiji received US$32 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with mitigation receiving the largest share (61%). Major contributors included the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and the Global Environment Facility (GEF). Additionally, between January 2015 and September 2016, Fiji was allocated US$31 million from the Green Climate Fund for water supply and US$3.8 million from the Forest Carbon Partnership Facility for REDD+ readiness.

Between 2010 and 2014, Samoa received US$98.2 million in grant-equivalent finance specifically targeting climate change, with 68.5% dedicated to adaptation and 30% to mitigation. The largest funding sources were the Climate Investment Funds and the Global Environment Facility, with primary sectoral allocations going toward environmental policy, renewable energy, and road transport. Additionally, Samoa was allocated US$6.1 million from the Global Environment Facility between January 2015 and September 2016 for renewable energy system improvements.

The report analyzes seven multilateral climate funds—the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Adaptation Fund (AF), Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), and the Clean Technology Fund (CTF) and Strategic Climate Fund (SCF)—against five strategies for transformative change: achieving impact at scale, promoting country ownership, improving efficiency, supporting equitable allocation, and increasing accountability. It finds that the proliferation of funds has led to overlapping roles and inefficiencies. The authors recommend short-term reforms to clarify fund specialization and long-term architectural changes, including the potential consolidation or sunsetting of certain funds, such as the CIFs, SCCF, and LDCF, to streamline the climate finance landscape.

The report 'Beyond the Stripes' by WWF International demonstrates that tiger conservation serves as a catalyst for broader environmental and human benefits. It highlights how protecting tiger landscapes safeguards biodiversity hotspots, secures water for millions, mitigates climate change through carbon storage, and supports local economies and traditional cultures across Asia.

The report examines South Africa's renewable energy landscape, highlighting the success of the Renewable Energy Independent Power Producer Procurement Programme (REI4P) in attracting R195 billion in investment and creating 26,790 jobs. It argues that South Africa possesses world-class solar and wind resources that could allow for a 70% renewable energy share by 2040, reducing costs and emissions. However, the document identifies significant barriers, primarily the state utility Eskom's reluctance to sign power purchase agreements and a historical path-dependency on coal. It also discusses the rise of rooftop photovoltaics and the necessity of a 'just transition' to protect workers in the coal sector.

The document highlights a significant financing gap for cities in developing countries, where fewer than 20% have access to local capital markets and only 4% can access international markets. While the global green bond market grew exponentially from USD 3.2 billion in 2012 to USD 44 billion in 2015, only USD 2.3 billion has been linked to city-based projects in developing countries. The guide outlines two primary strategies for accessing these funds: direct issuance for creditworthy cities (potentially using guarantees or cornerstone buyers) and indirect access for others by aligning projects with the frameworks of multilateral development banks, commercial banks, or corporations.