Search Climate Insights Directory

The report identifies barriers preventing institutional investors from allocating capital to climate-friendly assets and proposes a two-tiered action plan for EU policymakers. Short-term actions focus on increasing the volume and discoverability of assets through green bonds, credit enhancements, and securitisation. Medium-to-long-term actions aim to shift the decision-making frameworks of investors by lengthening investment horizons, improving stewardship, and mainstreaming carbon risk accounting.

The Green Climate Fund Secretariat has developed proposed guidelines for a 'fit-for-purpose' accreditation approach that scales fiduciary and environmental and social safeguard (ESS) requirements based on the nature and risk of proposed activities. To ensure coherence with other institutions, the Secretariat conducted a gap analysis comparing the Fund's standards with those of the Adaptation Fund, Global Environment Facility, and EU DEVCO, as well as an assessment of private sector best practices in consultation with the Private Sector Advisory Group.

The document argues that the GCF's proposed safeguards are insufficiently detailed and overly reliant on the IFC Performance Standards, which the authors claim do not represent international best practice. It advocates for a differentiated accreditation system based on project risk levels, the adoption of a mandatory 'do no harm' principle, and the creation of an 'exclusion list' for high-risk activities such as fossil fuel extraction. The submission emphasizes that environmental, social, and gender safeguards must be developed with the same rigor and independent oversight as fiduciary standards, specifically calling for mandatory requirements on land tenure, indigenous peoples' free, prior and informed consent, and gender-responsive stakeholder engagement.

The report discusses the historical and legal foundations of fiduciary duty, emphasizing the need to evolve these standards to address modern environmental and climate risks. It highlights that ignoring such risks can be considered a breach of fiduciary duty and provides comparative models from South Africa, the United States, the Netherlands, and Norway to illustrate how institutional investors can transition toward sustainable practices. The document specifically suggests that China is at an opportune moment to establish culturally appropriate fiduciary principles to manage its growing institutional assets sustainably.

The document explores the historical and legal foundations of fiduciary duties, emphasizing their role in protecting beneficiaries from the inherent conflicts of interest and information asymmetries in asset management. It argues that climate change and environmental risks are now material financial factors that fiduciaries must integrate into their risk management to avoid a dereliction of duty. Using examples from South Africa, the United States, the Netherlands, and Norway, the report illustrates how different jurisdictions are transitioning toward sustainable asset management and suggests a roadmap for China to establish similar culturally appropriate fiduciary principles.

The document examines the mechanisms for developing countries to access Green Climate Fund (GCF) financing directly rather than through international intermediaries. It distinguishes between 'direct access' (oversight and management at the national level) and 'enhanced direct access' (where funding decisions also occur nationally). Drawing on the Adaptation Fund and Global Environment Facility (GEF), it identifies fiduciary standards and institutional capacity as primary barriers to accreditation. The brief recommends that the GCF Board establish clear access modalities quickly, consider interim accreditation for previously accredited institutions, and support capacity building to enable the devolution of decision-making to subnational levels.

The report finds that while South African institutional investors increasingly recognize the relevance of ESG factors, integration remains slow and inconsistent. Many investors rely on narrow proxies for climate risk, such as carbon taxes, while largely ignoring physical risks and water scarcity. The study highlights a systemic lack of demand from asset owners and a prevalence of short-termism in performance evaluation, which hinders the transition to a low-carbon economy. Despite these barriers, a majority of respondents acknowledge that portfolios are heavily exposed to climate-vulnerable sectors, particularly through state-owned enterprises like Eskom and Transnet, leading to the conclusion that many assets may be mispriced.

The report examines twenty investor networks to determine if they are influencing financial regulatory reform to promote long-term sustainability. While many networks engage in consultations and develop best practices for ESG disclosure, the author concludes that their overall impact on the direction of regulation has been minimal. The document argues that investor coalitions often fail to translate their collective financial power into policy influence and suggests a multi-scale organizational structure to better align global financial systems with regional regulatory frameworks.

The report identifies synergies and trade-offs between climate change mitigation, adaptation, and food security in the agricultural sector. It evaluates existing international funding mechanisms—including carbon markets, multilateral funds, and Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs)—and proposes the creation of domestic 'gatekeeper institutions' to coordinate resources and overcome implementation fragmentation for smallholders.

The report argues that South African institutional investors, as 'universal owners', face material financial risks from climate change and water scarcity, which are currently underpriced in securities markets. It highlights that listed coal reserves exceed scientific carbon budgets and that water scarcity poses significant operational risks to water-intensive sectors. The document recommends a shift toward low-carbon and water-responsible investments, calling for regulatory interventions to create investment-grade green financial products and mandatory ESG disclosures to avoid stranded assets and systemic market shocks.

The document examines the process of securing direct access to the Adaptation Fund through National Implementing Entities (NIEs) in Jamaica and Senegal. It identifies common challenges regarding fiduciary standards and money management, while noting that early inclusion of civil society aids project implementation. The authors highlight that institutional capacity constraints can hinder access to finance even after accreditation and suggest that multilateral agencies should help develop accessible accreditation standards. Finally, it warns that qualifying as an NIE for the Adaptation Fund does not guarantee direct access to the larger Green Climate Fund, emphasizing the need for capacity building in vulnerable countries.

The document analyzes the accreditation processes of the PIOJ in Jamaica and the CSE in Senegal as National Implementing Entities (NIEs) for the Adaptation Fund. It identifies key success factors, such as existing institutional capacity and stakeholder engagement, while highlighting challenges related to stringent fiduciary standards and the difficulty of accessing funds after accreditation. The brief warns that the direct access model may exclude the most vulnerable nations with limited institutional capacity, a risk that could be magnified by the larger scale of the Green Climate Fund.

The document argues that the 20072008 global financial crisis was exacerbated by a convergence of power between elite financial circles and government regulators, where deregulation allowed corporations to exploit legal loopholes and offload risks. It contends that technical regulatory reforms are insufficient if they do not address the underlying mindset and values of these power sources. The author suggests that reinforcing fiduciary duty, implementing negative licensing, and ending 'financialization' are potential paths toward reform. Ultimately, the paper proposes that societies should reduce their dependence on the financial sector for the delivery of essential social services and environmental sustainability to mitigate the risks of future systemic failures.

The document analyzes the mechanisms for recipient countries to access climate finance directly, distinguishing between 'direct access' (oversight and management at the national level) and 'enhanced direct access' (where funding decisions also occur nationally). It highlights that institutional capacity, particularly meeting fiduciary standards, is the primary barrier for developing countries. Drawing on the Adaptation Fund and GEF, the brief notes that while some countries like Belize and Jamaica have successfully achieved accreditation, many others struggle with complex application processes, language barriers, and a lack of documented project management track records. The brief recommends that the GCF define its access modalities quickly, learn from existing funds, and consider conditional accreditation for institutions already approved by other climate funds.

The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has developed a Climate Risk Assessment Letter to help pension fund beneficiaries engage trustees on the management of climate-related financial risks. The guide argues that failing to monitor these risks—which include regulatory, technology, and litigation risks—may constitute a breach of fiduciary duty. It highlights that global financial institutions and some national funds, such as those in Norway and Ireland, are already reassessing or divesting from fossil fuel assets to protect long-term returns.

This report details ten landmark climate change cases across different countries, highlighting how courts are holding governments and corporations accountable. Key examples include the Urgenda case in the Netherlands, which established a state's legal duty to increase climate ambition, and the Milieudefensie v. Shell case, which held a private company liable for inadequate emissions reductions. The document explores diverse legal strategies, including human rights obligations, fiduciary duties of corporate boards, and the necessity of climate considerations in environmental impact assessments.

The report finds that climate risk is increasingly viewed as a material financial risk rather than a niche ethical concern, driving asset owners to improve governance and risk management. While 67% of the sampled asset owners have divestment policies and many are adopting TCFD-aligned reporting, there is a significant gap between public and private sector disclosure. Most asset owners focus on long-term risks and equity portfolios, with limited progress in quantifying risks or performing scenario analysis across all asset classes.

The document asserts that climate change and the net zero-carbon transition create material financial risks for all UK listed companies, making detailed disclosure a legal necessity. It claims that the Financial Reporting Council (FRC) and Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) have failed to hold companies accountable, citing a series of complaints made by ClientEarth where regulators took no public enforcement action despite evidence of non-compliance. The report urges regulators to close this 'accountability gap' and encourages institutional investors to use their power to demand TCFD-aligned disclosures.

This guide outlines strategies for legal professionals to drive corporate climate action. It focuses on four key areas: enhancing corporate governance by tying executive pay to climate targets and diversifying boards; managing external counsel to ensure alignment with decarbonization; incorporating climate risk and emissions data into legal contracts and financial instruments; and navigating evolving environmental regulations.

A group of over 30 law professors argues that the public trust doctrine (PTD) is an inherent attribute of state sovereignty that obligates Utah to protect the Great Salt Lake. The brief contends that Utah has violated this duty by failing to restrain upper basin water diversions, which have reduced the lake's footprint by half and threatened species extinction. The authors assert that the PTD applies not only to navigable waters but also to non-navigable tributaries and groundwater that sustain the lake, citing legal precedents from other Western states like California, Nevada, and Hawaii.