Search Climate Insights Directory

The briefing argues that while private sector financing is often promoted to bridge Africa's infrastructure deficit, it carries significant risks including higher costs, a lack of development mandates, and extreme risk aversion. It suggests that public funds should be strategically targeted toward social infrastructure and project preparation where private interest is low, while emphasizing the need for capacity building to prevent exploitation and improve project quality.

The document argues for a shift from simply mobilizing 'climate finance' to ensuring all investments are 'Paris-aligned', meaning they actively support limiting global warming to well below 2°C. It compares MDB eligibility typologies against a framework of 'aligned', 'misaligned', and 'conditional' investments. Analysis of energy and transport sectors shows that while about half of MDB typologies are aligned, two-thirds of the remainder are only conditionally aligned, necessitating stricter benchmarks and fuel-specific criteria to avoid carbon lock-in.

The document asserts that the current 'Climate Finance Paradigm' used by Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)—which focuses on maximizing finance for mitigation and adaptation—is insufficient. It proposes a 'Paris Alignment Paradigm' that requires MDBs to align their entire portfolios with the Paris Agreement, mainstream adaptation across all operations, and assist countries in strengthening their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The report emphasizes that MDBs and shareholders should commit to a zero-emissions energy sector and overall net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050, working with clients to find renewable alternatives to emission-intensive activities.

The report argues that credit enhancement is essential for closing the USD 90 trillion global infrastructure deficit and scaling sustainable infrastructure, which is often more expensive to plan and build due to unpriced environmental and social externalities. It identifies key barriers to adoption, including a lack of public sector expertise, misaligned incentive structures at multilateral development banks (MDBs) that favor loans over guarantees, and the administrative complexity of asset recycling under Basel III. The authors suggest that while a Universal Guarantee Facility is being discussed, empowering existing dedicated de-risking agencies and improving collaboration between providers may be more effective. The report also highlights the need for innovation in mitigating currency, refinancing, and legal risks related to environmental and social compliance.

The document examines the role of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) in supporting the Paris Agreement's temperature goals. It reviews scientific scenarios and existing MDB tools to propose approaches for aligning portfolios, specifically targeting direct project investments, financial intermediaries, and policy-based lending within the energy supply and transport sectors.

CIEL argues that IDB Invest's Access to Information Policy must be rooted in democratic principles and international law to protect affected communities and environmental defenders. Key recommendations include eliminating fees for information requests, extending the disclosure window for environmental and social documents to 120 days before Board approval, and ensuring the policy aligns with the Escazú Agreement. CIEL also emphasizes the need for robust protections for indigenous peoples' free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) and the safety of environmental human rights defenders in the region.

The research paper examines infrastructure financing in Botswana, focusing on the role of multilateral development banks (MDBs) like the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank. It highlights that while MDBs provide competitive financial terms and valuable non-lending services, their processes are often hindered by slow loan approvals and procurement systems that are not fully aligned with national systems. The paper also explores alternative financing sources, such as domestic bonds and public-private partnerships (PPPs), noting that their current uptake is limited, leaving MDBs as a critical source of external funding for Botswana's energy, water, and transport sectors.

The document examines the tension between the high E&S safeguard standards of MDBs and the capacity or sovereignty of borrowing countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It specifically analyzes the World Bank's 2016 Environmental and Social Framework (ESF), which allows for greater use of domestic safeguard frameworks. The author argues that to avoid the dilution of standards, MDBs and governments must move toward partnerships based on country-specific 'E&S safeguard plans' and enhanced capacity building, while ensuring civil society remains an active agent of accountability.

The report argues that international public climate finance must shift from a project-finance focus to a financial system development focus to effectively support Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). It identifies key barriers in developing countries, such as short-termism in banking and volatile capital flows, and suggests that public actors should scale up blended finance and de-risking instruments. The authors introduce a 'Climate Finance Systems Framework' to map the interactions between public providers, private investors, systemic enablers (like regulators), and service providers, aiming to identify leverage points for scaling finance flows.

The research identifies a sustainable infrastructure investment gap of USD 18-36 trillion in developing countries, with critical needs in power generation, transport, and water. It analyzes the roles of various public finance actors—including bilateral aid agencies, multilateral development banks (MDBs), and national development banks (NDBs)—highlighting a systemic mismatch where the largest mitigation potentials in upper-middle-income countries lack access to concessional finance. The paper argues for a shift from project-specific finance to financial system development and the scaling of blended finance and risk-mitigation instruments to crowd in private capital.

The document examines the shift by multilateral development banks (MDBs) toward using a borrower country's own domestic public financial management (PFM) and environmental and social frameworks (ESF) rather than imposing external rules. While UCS promotes national sovereignty and reduces duplication of costs, its adoption is hindered by MDB concerns over financial and reputational risks, as well as capacity gaps in borrowing countries. Case studies reveal divergent attitudes: South Africa views UCS as a right, Kenya prefers a hybrid approach, and Morocco is pragmatic, accepting MDB systems where domestic gaps exist.

The document argues that while using country systems (UCS) respects sovereignty and promotes national ownership, MDBs are hindered by financial, reputational, and technical risks. It recommends moving away from 'one-size-fits-all' safeguards toward tailored approaches, strengthening local capacity, and empowering MDB country offices to manage risks more effectively.

The statement by Friends of the Earth International criticizes the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for investing over $3 billion in coal projects over the last decade despite recognizing climate change as a threat to poverty alleviation. It highlights the Tata Mundra Ultra Mega Coal plant in India as a primary example of environmental and social harm caused by ADB funding. The document demands that the ADB ban all coal funding and relinquish its legal immunity to allow affected communities to seek justice.

The document examines the infrastructure financing gap in sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting the distinct needs of low-income countries (LICs) and middle-income countries (MICs). While MDBs provide low-interest loans and technical expertise, they face competition from private financiers and bilateral investors. LICs struggle with indebtedness and declining official development assistance, often resorting to expensive private loans, whereas MICs leverage domestic markets and attract more private investment. Common challenges across the continent include a lack of technical skills for public-private partnerships, a reliance on single commodities, and overly bureaucratic MDB approval processes. The author concludes that MDBs must move away from treating Africa as a monolith and instead adopt country-specific strategies.

The document examines why traditional multilateral development banks struggle to meet the needs of middle-income countries, citing bureaucratic loan processes, rigid procurement rules, and stringent safeguards. Using the African Development Bank (AfDB) as a case study and analyzing experiences in Nigeria and Botswana, it argues that MICs are increasingly turning to private finance, bilateral donors like China, and domestic markets. It recommends that the NDB adopt a leaner operational model, utilize 'use of country systems' (UCS) for procurement, focus on 'green' sustainable infrastructure, and improve gender representation in governance to avoid the pitfalls of established MDBs.

The briefing outlines five key priorities for climate finance at COP22: the roadmap to mobilize $100 billion for developing countries by 2020, the establishment of accounting modalities to define what constitutes climate finance, the development of systematic reporting formats for finance provided and received, the need to scale up and balance adaptation finance relative to mitigation, and the potential renewal of the Adaptation Fund's mandate to serve the Paris Agreement.

The author contends that Africa should actively influence the New Development Bank (NDB) during its early implementation to overcome the slow pace of traditional multilateral development bank financing. The NDB is highlighted for its agility, equal voting rights among founding members, and potential to lend in domestic currencies to mitigate exchange-rate risks. The paper emphasizes the role of the NDB's Africa Regional Centre in South Africa to address the shortage of bankable projects and suggests integrating poverty alleviation and women's empowerment indicators into project preparation.

The document examines the financing gap for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), noting that demand for implementation funding far exceeds available dedicated supply. It identifies several barriers to investment, including a narrow focus on specific donor requirements, a lack of financial planning expertise in project design, and misalignment with the investment logic of multilateral development banks. The paper argues that NAMAs must diversify their funding sources and integrate with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to achieve transformational impact, while recommending early engagement with finance ministries and the private sector to improve project bankability.

The report finds that the CIF provides a unique, programmatic approach to climate finance that differs from the project-by-project model of the GCF. It has been the largest source of external concessional finance for Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), particularly in high-risk technologies like geothermal and concentrated solar power. The authors recommend keeping the CIF operational to maintain momentum and bridge investment gaps, suggesting it work complementarily with the GCF.

The document outlines a diverse landscape of climate financing for cities, categorised into local internal revenues, external third-party sources, and international funds. Local options include property and land taxes, user fees, development charges, and Tax Increment Financing (TIF), as well as 'intracting' for energy retrofits. External sources feature Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), green bonds, and crowdfunding. International support is available through climate funds like the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and Global Environment Facility (GEF), Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs), and philanthropic organisations, though the authors note that most international funds require cooperation with national governments due to strict fiduciary and creditworthiness standards. The guide emphasizes that while international funds are necessary for large-scale projects, local sources foster greater municipal autonomy and sustainability.