Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details the 2023 compliance monitoring of GCF accredited entities (AEs). Of 48 AEs required to submit annual self-assessments, 89.6% reported changes that either had no impact or positive impacts on their accreditation status. Midterm reviews (MTRs) for 14 AEs were conducted, with 11 completed, generally confirming continued compliance with fiduciary, environmental and social safeguards (ESS), and gender standards. Additionally, 27 international access AEs (IAEs) reported providing over 444 cases of support to direct access entities, primarily focusing on building track records (48.9%) and meeting accreditation standards (48.6%).

The report analyzes Mexico's waste sector methane emissions, highlighting a significant increase since 1990 and a lack of integrated data systems. It identifies critical gaps in organic waste treatment, landfill gas capture, and municipal financing, while providing recommendations to strengthen the regulatory framework and improve stakeholder capacity to meet national climate targets.

The report argues that hydrogen fuel cell electric trucks (FCETs) are best suited for long-haul heavy-duty trucking due to superior payload capacity, range, and refueling speeds compared to battery electric trucks (BETs). However, adoption is currently stymied by a 'chicken-and-egg' infrastructure problem and high fuel costs, with public hydrogen in California costing approximately $25/kg compared to a diesel-competitive price of roughly $6.50/kg. While California is the primary driver of adoption due to regulations like the Advanced Clean Fleet and Advanced Clean Trucks rules, projections from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) suggest slow penetration unless significant interventions occur. The report recommends prioritizing the reduction of pump prices—even if it requires accepting higher carbon intensity in the short term—and streamlining infrastructure permitting to enable a transition away from diesel by 2030.

The study finds that WACC in Africa's power sector remains high compared to global benchmarks, driven primarily by a cost of equity that is on average double the cost of debt. While WACC is projected to decrease from 18% to 13% by 2070, significant regional disparities persist, with Eastern Africa facing the highest costs and Northern Africa the lowest. The authors argue that using uniform cost of capital assumptions leads to underestimation bias in energy costs and misguides policy, particularly for capital-intensive clean energy projects.

The document argues that the climate crisis is a human rights crisis, creating a legal obligation for States and corporations to provide remedy and full reparation for loss and damage. It asserts that the right to remedy is already established under international law and does not require new norms, but rather the application of existing frameworks and the 'polluter pays principle' to hold fossil fuel industries accountable. The text criticizes the UNFCCC for failing to uphold the right to remedy through its reliance on voluntary approaches and calls for the restructuring of loss and damage mechanisms to align with human rights standards. Finally, it emphasizes that while the UNFCCC is insufficient, complementary legal strategies—including litigation in international, regional, and national courts—are essential for delivering climate justice.

The document argues against a framework convention for the future plastics treaty, asserting that such a structure would delay concrete action. Instead, it recommends a substantive or hybrid treaty containing binding obligations and technical annexes. By comparing the successes of the Montreal Protocol with the perceived failures of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, the author highlights that mandatory national targets and efficient amendment processes for annexes are critical for effectiveness. The briefing warns that voluntary provisions and a lack of voting mechanisms in the Conference of the Parties (COP) risk creating an ineffectual 'paper tiger' agreement.

The report identifies a significant funding gap in China's agri-food climate transition, noting that global climate finance for the sector is only one-seventh of what is required. It argues that while public funds currently dominate, mobilising private capital through transition finance—including sustainability-linked loans, bonds, and blended finance—is essential. The document highlights barriers such as inadequate GHG emission disclosure among Chinese agri-food companies and a lack of credible transition plans. It recommends that regulators establish standardised accounting for agri-food emissions, support the development of entity-level transition plans, and align agricultural subsidies with climate goals to ensure a just transition for smallholders and SMEs.

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 advocates for a shift from siloed environmental policies to comprehensive, legally binding frameworks that integrate biodiversity into all sectors of governance. The briefing emphasizes the need for human rights-based approaches, particularly for Indigenous Peoples, and highlights the importance of accountability mechanisms and the role of strategic litigation and regulation, such as the EU's Nature Restoration Law and Deforestation-free Products Regulation, in achieving global biodiversity targets.

The report details a systematic approach to quantifying 'bottom-up' climate finance needs—the capital countries state they require to meet national targets—as opposed to 'top-down' predictive models. CPI reviewed 168 NDCs, standardizing diverse data on currency, timeframes, and sector classifications using its Global Landscape of Climate Finance (GLCF) taxonomy. The methodology distinguishes between unconditional (domestic) and conditional (international) needs, while acknowledging significant data gaps, as less than half of the reviewed NDCs provided fully costed finance needs.

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 guide establishes 'Common Principles' for tracking green finance, emphasizing conservativeness and granularity. It details a three-step qualification process for adaptation finance and a whitelist-based approach for mitigation. It also introduces a methodology for biodiversity finance based on OECD Rio Markers and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, while addressing challenges like taxonomy misalignment and resource limitations within development finance institutions.

The guide establishes a standardized framework for tracking climate mitigation, adaptation, and biodiversity finance. It provides detailed lists of eligible activities for mitigation, a three-step validation process for adaptation, and specific criteria for biodiversity finance. The document emphasizes the use of ex-ante GHG emission reduction assessments and offers methodologies for quantifying finance through incremental or proportional approaches to ensure transparency and avoid double-counting.

Climate finance for land use in Brazil averaged R$ 88.1 billion annually from 2021 to 2023, a 145% increase over the 2015-2020 period. Domestic sources provided 97% of these funds, with rural credit serving as the primary instrument (58% of total flows). While mitigation remains the dominant climate use (57%), there was a significant surge in 'loss and damage' payments, which grew 357% between 2021 and 2023 due to government indemnities for extreme weather events. The report highlights a heavy reliance on self-declared sustainable practices in rural credit and a decline in thematic bonds, while noting the critical role of the federal budget in supporting native forests.

Global climate finance more than doubled between 2018 and 2022, reaching USD 1.46 trillion in 2022, yet remains far below the USD 7.4 trillion annual average needed by 2030 for a 1.5°C scenario. Mitigation finance dominates the landscape, driven by renewable energy and electric vehicles in advanced economies and China, while adaptation finance, though growing, remains severely underfunded, particularly for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The report highlights a critical imbalance, noting that fossil fuel subsidies reached USD 1.4 trillion in 2022, nearly equaling total climate finance. It recommends reforming the global financial architecture through increased concessional finance, risk mitigation, and the redirection of fossil fuel expenditures to close the investment gap.

In 2023, IDFC members committed $199 billion in green finance, a 31% decrease from 2022, largely due to currency depreciation in East Asia and the Pacific and the adoption of more conservative tracking methodologies. Climate finance dominated at 98% of total green finance, with mitigation accounting for 89% of that amount. Adaptation finance fell significantly to $10.5 billion, while biodiversity finance reached its lowest level since 2020 at $8.2 billion. The report emphasizes the role of public development banks (PDBs) in providing transformative finance and calls for the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) to integrate 'transformational criteria' to better catalyze private investment.

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.

The report proposes a two-step assessment approach to link financial institutions' net zero strategies to real-world impacts. It emphasizes tracking investments in new assets rather than existing portfolios to avoid the 'divestment' loophole where assets are transferred without reducing emissions. The methodology uses a multi-level ownership tree (up to Level 2) to attribute finance to indirect investors based on equity and debt weightings, utilizing data from sources like Bloomberg Terminal and CPI's Global Landscape of Climate Finance.