Search Climate Insights Directory

The report details a workshop in Panama aimed at moving Just Transition from dialogue to implementation. It presents case studies from the Dominican Republic, Spain, and Brazil, and synthesizes group discussions on creating a Just Transition taxonomy, defining monitoring indicators, and establishing core guiding principles to support developing countries and the COP30 presidency.

The report details a workshop in Bonn that brought together over 70 stakeholders to bridge the gap between international Just Transition (JT) negotiations and on-the-ground realities. Key discussions focused on overcoming barriers in the Global South—such as limited technical capacity, fragmented governance, and financial constraints—and the importance of national ownership. The document highlights South Korea's coal phase-out fund as a case study and proposes five key outcomes for the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), including the establishment of a Global JT Mechanism and the integration of JT into national climate plans like NDCs. Participants emphasized that JT should be framed as a development opportunity and an enabler of climate ambition rather than a cause for delay.

The document examines the progress of the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) following SB62, highlighting a divide between developed and developing nations over how to measure progress and implement adaptation strategies. While there is a framework of eleven thematic targets, Parties remain polarized on the specific indicators to be finalized by the Belém work programme. The briefing details the specific stances of Australia, Least Developed Countries (LDCs), and the Arab Group, noting a lack of consensus on transformational adaptation and means of implementation.

The first week of COP30 was characterized by significant friction between developed and developing nations over finance, trade measures, and the 1.5C temperature goal. While some progress was made in operationalizing the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage and advancing Article 6 carbon market standards, negotiations on the Just Transition Work Programme and the Gender Action Plan stalled due to disagreements over terminology and the role of unilateral trade measures. The Brazilian Presidency launched the Belem Health Action Plan and proposed a framework for synergies between the three Rio Conventions, though many thematic areas remain bracketed heading into the second week.

The COP30 Week 2 debrief details the adoption of the 'Global Mutirão' cover decision, which calls for tripling adaptation finance by 2035 but omits references to fossil fuels and deforestation. Key outcomes include the recommendation for a Just Transition mechanism (BAM) to be operationalized in 2026, the transfer of $26.8 million to the Article 6.4 PACM, and the adoption of the Belém Gender Action Plan. However, significant tensions persisted regarding unilateral trade measures, the 1.5°C temperature goal, and the lack of concrete targets in climate finance and the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA).

The document describes the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP), established at COP27, as a people-centred approach to climate action aimed at reducing inequality while building climate resilience. It highlights that while COP28's Global Stocktake emphasised a "swift, just, and equitable transition," specific details on fund mobilisation for Loss & Damage remained unaddressed. The SB60 conference is set to host the first dialogue under the UAE JTWP to identify pathways for the Paris Agreement via national adaptation plans and low-emission strategies. Further detailed discussions on policy commitments, financial reform, and the integration of just transition principles into Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) are deferred to COP29.

The document outlines the progress of the Sharm el-Sheikh joint work on implementation of agriculture and food security (SSJA) following SB62, where a draft was adopted without objection. It highlights a divide between the G77, China, and LDCs—who prioritize food security, adaptation for smallholders, and non-conditional finance—and developed nations like the EU, UK, and Australia, who favor market-linked mechanisms and climate-smart agriculture. The briefing notes that while parties recognize the need to align agriculture finance with climate goals, significant funding gaps remain as they prepare for COP30 in Belém.

The Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA) aims to increase worldwide climate resilience by strengthening adaptive capacity and reducing vulnerability. Following the agreement on targets and a framework at COP28, COP29 discussions are expected to focus on establishing measurable progress metrics, securing adaptation finance, and improving accountability for National Adaptation Plans.

Asia faces a critical adaptation finance gap, with only USD 34 billion in tracked flows against an annual need of USD 212 billion (or USD 431 billion by some estimates). The document identifies systemic barriers including complex access to global funds, institutional capacity constraints, low disbursement rates, and a reliance on loans over grants. It recommends a 'whole-of-government' strategy, scaling up high-quality international public finance, implementing locally led adaptation principles, and developing detailed Adaptation Investment Plans (AIPs) to make projects bankable.

International public adaptation finance for Small Island Developing States (SIDS) averaged just over $2 billion annually in 2021–2022, representing only 0.2% of global climate finance. This is significantly below the estimated annual need of $11.7 billion required between 2023 and 2035. The report highlights a critical reliance on debt, which accounted for 44% of flows, and a lack of correlation between finance volumes and climate vulnerability. It advocates for replacing ODA eligibility criteria with a multidimensional vulnerability index to improve access to concessional funding.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has developed an operational framework to improve integration and coherence across climate finance institutions. The framework is organized around four pillars: board-level discussions on fund-to-fund arrangements, activity-level integration, national programming coherence, and a high-level annual dialogue. It aims to reduce inefficiencies and maximize impact by aligning policies, sharing information, and coordinating with other funds such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the Adaptation Fund (AF).

The document outlines the financial and operational rules for GCF fees and project management costs. It specifies payment schedules, eligibility criteria for activities, and documentation requirements for budgets exceeding certain thresholds. It distinguishes between the roles of accredited entities and implementing partners and provides indicative lists of eligible costs for project supervision, completion, and management.

The GCF approved USD 3.7 billion for 76 projects across 79 developing countries, targeting a reduction of 1.3 billion metric tonnes of CO2 equivalent. Key operational developments include the launch of the Simplified Approval Process (SAP) Pilot Scheme, the adoption of an Indigenous Peoples Policy, and the establishment of an Environmental and Social Policy. The fund is also preparing for its first formal replenishment process and expanding its private sector engagement through dedicated pilot programmes for MSMEs and resource mobilization at scale.

Between August 2021 and July 2022, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) approved USD 1.69 billion for 19 new projects, bringing its total approved funding to USD 10.4 billion across 196 projects. The Fund updated key policies, including the Private Sector Strategy and the Simplified Approval Process, and launched the GCF-2 replenishment process. Significant efforts were made to support vulnerable regions, with 65% of adaptation funding in grant equivalent terms allocated to LDCs, SIDS, and African States. The GCF also expanded its network of accredited entities and continued its Independent Evaluation Unit's assessments of portfolio effectiveness.

The guidelines establish a framework for increasing national ownership of GCF activities, emphasizing the central role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) in aligning climate projects with national priorities. It outlines the use of country programs and structured dialogues to ensure that funding is consistent with national strategies like NDCs and NAPAs. The document also details the integration of national engagement across GCF operational modalities, including the Readiness and Preparatory Support Programme, the accreditation process, and the 'no-objection' procedure, while stressing the need for inclusive, continuous consultation with diverse stakeholders throughout the project cycle.

The policy defines maximum fee percentages for GCF accredited entities based on the size of public sector grants, ranging from 4% for large projects to 8.5% for micro-projects, with specific provisions for increases and calculation methods.

The document outlines the financial rules for GCF project fees and management costs. It specifies a disbursement schedule where 90% of fees are paid during project implementation and 10% upon final report approval. It defines the roles of accredited entities (AE) and executing entities, sets documentation requirements for management costs exceeding 5% or 7.5% for projects over USD 3 million, and provides detailed lists of eligible activities, such as project supervision, financial monitoring, and staffing costs.

The GCF's private sector strategy aims to mobilize private investment for climate action in developing countries, particularly for the most vulnerable, including LDCs, SIDS, and African states. The strategy is organized around four pillars: promoting a conducive investment environment, accelerating innovation in business models and technology, derisking market-creating investments, and strengthening national and regional financial institutions. To implement this, the GCF is introducing the Project-Specific Evaluation Approach (PSEA) to improve access for non-accredited private entities and is expanding its use of blended finance, including guarantees, equity, and insurance products. The fund also focuses on helping countries translate their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) into bankable investment plans while mitigating currency risks and avoiding increases in sovereign debt.

The document outlines a comprehensive investment framework for the Green Climate Fund, detailing six primary investment criteria: impact potential, paradigm shift potential, sustainable development potential, needs of the beneficiaries, country ownership, and efficiency and effectiveness. For each criterion, it specifies activity-specific sub-criteria and indicative assessment factors, including quantitative indicators for mitigation (such as tCO2eq reduced) and adaptation (such as number of beneficiaries). The framework emphasizes the need for proposals to demonstrate climate resilience, gender equality, and the ability to catalyze further investment or replicate successful models across different regions and sectors.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) has implemented a tiered fee structure for accredited entities (AEs) and delivery partners (DPs) handling public sector grants, Project Preparation Facilities (PPFs), and the Readiness Programme. Fees are capped based on project size, ranging from 4% for large projects to 8.5% for micro projects, with potential increases for micro and small projects upon justification. Fees for private sector and non-grant public sector projects are negotiated case-by-case.