Search Climate Insights Directory

The document examines the necessity for the EBRD to integrate sustainable development into its operations, emphasizing the interdependence of economic health and environmental quality. It proposes a framework based on the principles of futurity, equity, and the value of the environment, while suggesting specific accounting methods and project appraisal criteria to ensure that development does not compromise the needs of future generations.

The report finds that while there is some progress in governance—such as the African Union's permanent seat in the G20 and a third chair for Africa on the IMF Executive Board—most substantive financial reforms are lagging. It highlights a critical gap in climate finance, noting that Africa receives only 20% of global adaptation flows despite needing US$277 billion annually. The document argues that the current GFA is 'ill-equipped' to handle Africa's debt crises and high borrowing costs, with the cost of capital in Africa being 5% or higher than in other regions. Key areas of 'no progress' include the overhaul of the G20 Common Framework for debt treatment and the reform of the IMF quota system. The report recommends prioritizing the reduction of borrowing costs, enhancing transparency in 'new and additional' climate finance, and establishing an African Credit Rating Agency to counter subjective international assessments.

The document examines the disproportionate distribution of Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) under the IMF quota system, noting that Africa received only 5% of the 2021 allocation. It proposes that G20 countries reallocate a minimum of USD 50 billion to African Financial Institutions (AFIs), specifically highlighting the African Development Bank's (AfDB) Hybrid Capital Instrument (HCI) as a risk-free mechanism to leverage funds for climate adaptation, mitigation, and food security. The paper also recommends expanding the list of African prescribed holders of SDRs to include institutions like Afrexim Bank and the Trade Development Bank to increase financing options.

The document critiques the G20 Common Framework and prior initiatives like HIPC, MDRI, and DSSI, claiming they provide minimal relief while encouraging new borrowing. It highlights the negative impact of credit rating agency biases and the lack of private creditor participation. The authors propose a shift toward an African-led financial system, including a gold-backed currency called the African Financial Asset (AfA), and call for unconditional debt cancellation.

The report examines the governance of multilateral development banks (MDBs), specifically the World Bank Group and regional banks, focusing on their adherence to principles of access to information, public participation, and access to justice. While noting a shift toward formal disclosure policies and the creation of accountability mechanisms like the World Bank Inspection Panel, the authors argue that these processes remain largely ad hoc, inconsistent, and subject to broad discretionary exceptions. The document concludes that current MDB governance lacks systematic standards and recommends the establishment of an International Administrative Procedures Treaty to ensure minimum citizen-based rights across all international institutions.

The World Bank established an independent inspection panel on September 21, 1993, allowing affected parties in borrower territories to request investigations into the Bank's failure to follow its own operational policies. The panel's creation followed severe criticism of the Bank's environmental and social record, highlighted by the Morse Commission's review of the Sardar Sarovar project and the leaked Wapenhans report, which found that 78 percent of financial conditions in loan agreements were not fully enforced. While the authors view the panel as a significant advancement in international law, they argue that its independence is compromised because members are nominated by the Bank President and approved by Executive Directors. Furthermore, the panel's public accountability is limited as reports are withheld from the public until after the Executive Directors have considered them. The authors suggest that the panel's ultimate success depends on the diligence of NGOs in filing complaints and monitoring the process, noting that U.S. Congress funding for the International Development Association (IDA) is implicitly linked to the panel's performance.

The document examines the three pillars of the Public Participation Convention—access to information, access to decision-making, and access to justice—and argues that export credit agencies, as government agencies, should be subject to these transparency and accountability requirements. It notes that while the Convention is not yet in force, signatories are obligated not to act contrary to its purpose. The paper also discusses the Convention's limited direct application to multilateral development banks and its weak compliance review mechanisms.

FAST-Infra is a public-private partnership involving banks, asset managers, governments, and development banks aimed at accelerating private investment in sustainable infrastructure in developing countries. The initiative is developing a sustainable infrastructure labelling system to guide governments, developers, and institutional investors, alongside four pilot market mechanisms: a technology-enabled securitization platform, a global off-take/revenue guarantee provider, an open-sourced managed co-lending portfolio programme, and a sustainable financing facility for national development banks.

The document highlights a severe shortfall in adaptation finance for Africa, where annual flows of USD 11.4 billion (2019-2020) fall far short of an estimated need of at least USD 52.7 billion. It warns that missing these investments could result in USD 6 trillion in foregone economic benefits by 2035. The brief notes that 53% of adaptation finance to Africa is debt-based, increasing the burden on vulnerable nations. It also identifies significant data gaps in tracking and a lack of ambitious, specific adaptation targets among public financial institutions, calling for a 'north star' goal for adaptation to mobilize private and public capital.

The report estimates that climate finance mobilised by developed countries for developing countries reached USD 61.8 billion in 2014 and USD 52.2 billion in 2013, with a two-year average of USD 57.0 billion. Public finance remains the dominant source, accounting for 71% of the average total, while mobilised private finance accounts for 26%. The findings highlight a significant increase in bilateral public finance and a substantial rise in outflows from Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) between 2013 and 2014. The report emphasizes that the majority of finance (77%) targets mitigation, with adaptation receiving 16%. It also details the methodological challenges in tracking private finance and the attribution of multilateral flows to developed countries.

The report by Friends of the Earth Asia Pacific criticizes the Asian Development Bank (ADB) for continuing to fund coal-fired power plants and mines despite its own policies recognizing the risks of climate change. It highlights specific projects in India, Pakistan, and the Philippines where ADB funding led to environmental degradation and community harm. The document calls for a total ban on new coal financing and a shift toward renewable energy alternatives.

The report finds that gas projects in low- and middle-income countries receive four times more international public finance than wind or solar, despite renewable alternatives being cheaper or expected to be soon. It argues that gas expansion is inconsistent with IPCC 1.5°C scenarios, which project a 55% decline in global gas consumption by 2050. Through case studies of Argentina, Egypt, and India, the report highlights risks such as asset stranding and debt, recommending that international public finance cease supporting fossil fuels and instead focus on enabling renewable energy systems.

The document details the transition of public finance institutions away from fossil fuel investments, highlighting the role of G20 governments and multilateral development banks in implementing restrictions on coal, oil, and gas financing to align with the Paris Agreement.

The report 'Five Years Lost' details 12 major fossil fuel expansion projects globally, estimating they would collectively emit at least 175 gigatons of CO2, consuming up to 75% of the remaining carbon budget for a 66% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C. It identifies a systemic failure in the finance industry, noting that between January 2016 and August 2020, financial institutions provided $1.6 trillion in loans and underwriting and $1.1 trillion in investments to 133 companies driving these projects. The document highlights the role of public finance, specifically Export Credit Agencies (ECAs) and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) like the World Bank Group, in de-risking these projects. Case studies cover diverse regions including the Permian Basin (USA), Vaca Muerta (Argentina), and the Barents Sea (Norway), emphasizing the associated human rights abuses, environmental degradation, and the 'myth' of natural gas as a bridge fuel.

The document highlights the difficulty of tracking climate finance in Latin America due to fragmented funding channels and inconsistent definitions of key terms. It presents data from the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean (GFLAC) showing that international public climate finance for eight countries between 2010 and 2015 primarily consists of loans and is skewed toward mitigation over adaptation. The authors call for mutually agreed definitions, clear reporting guidelines, and capacity building within national governments to improve the collection and use of climate finance data for decision-making.

The report argues that MDBs fail to deliver genuine climate finance due to flawed accounting methodologies that allow fossil fuel-related projects, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and waste-to-energy incineration, to be counted as climate action. It highlights a systemic bias toward mitigation over adaptation and a preference for loans over grants, which exacerbates debt in the Global South. Specific analysis of the AIIB and ADB reveals transparency gaps, the inclusion of high-emitting projects in climate portfolios, and a failure to integrate gender equality and human rights into climate finance principles.

The analysis finds that most energy supply investments by the World Bank, IFC, and ADB are either aligned with or could be aligned with 2°C pathways under specific conditions. Electricity transmission and distribution (T&D) represent the largest share of financing for the World Bank and ADB, accounting for approximately half of the volume of financing and 40 percent of projects. While renewables projects outnumbered natural gas power generation projects in both number and finance volume, the report warns that natural gas must act as a true 'bridge' by displacing coal rather than adding to it. The study identified 21 oil and gas production projects as 'controversial' due to high emissions and lock-in risk. Misaligned projects often cited strong development rationales, but the authors argue that the urgency of climate change requires transformational rather than incremental improvements. The report recommends that MDBs improve disclosure of indirect financing, shift toward newer technologies like battery storage, and ensure fossil fuel production support is reviewed against G7 commitments to phase out inefficient subsidies by 2025.

The report argues that Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) fail to systematically incorporate climate risk and emission mitigation into their strategies, with over 60 percent of energy sector financing ignoring climate change. It calls for MDBs to internalize environmental and social costs by measuring GHG emissions, revising country strategies, and increasing support for low-carbon technologies in emerging economies.

The document provides recommendations for the US House Committee on Financial Services regarding a proposed $400 million annual investment in the Clean Technology Fund (CTF). It argues that the fund should prioritize 'zero carbon' outcomes and energy efficiency over marginally cleaner fossil fuel technologies like supercritical coal. The author emphasizes that the CTF should be used as a lever to force the World Bank and other Multilateral Development Banks to integrate climate change considerations into their core energy portfolios, noting that as of 2007, over 50% of Bank energy financing ignored climate change. Finally, it asserts that the CTF must align with UNFCCC principles, ensuring transparency, balanced representation between donor and developing nations, and that funding is additional to poverty alleviation aid.

The paper examines how multilateral development banks (MDBs) can align their policy-based operations (PBOs)—which provide unearmarked budget support in exchange for policy reforms—with the Paris Agreement. It finds that current risk screening and diagnostics are insufficient to prevent policy actions from creating path dependence in climate-vulnerable sectors or undermining long-term climate neutrality. While PBOs offer opportunities for domestic policy coordination and ambitious climate action, MDBs currently neglect to mainstream Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) into the development plans that inform their activities.