Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines how Vertical Climate and Environment Funds (VCEFs)—specifically the Green Climate Fund (GCF), Global Environment Facility (GEF), Climate Investment Funds (CIF), and Adaptation Fund (AF)—can better mobilize private climate finance for emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). It identifies three primary opportunities: implementing sequential financing to move projects from ideation to scale, increasing collaboration with the global network of public development banks (PDBs), and aligning funding with country-driven investment plans. The document emphasizes the need to address the high cost of capital in EMDEs to enable greater real-economy transformation as public climate finance becomes more constrained.

The report argues that public development banks (PDBs)—including national, regional, and multilateral institutions—are uniquely positioned to overcome structural and market barriers to climate risk insurance in EMDEs. It identifies key barriers such as data gaps, underdeveloped local capital bases, and fragmented regulatory frameworks. The document proposes a tiered approach where National Development Banks (NDBs) focus on local market development and project pipelines, Regional Development Banks (RDBs) coordinate risk pooling and shared data infrastructure, and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) provide catalytic capital and credit enhancement. Key recommendations include the use of targeted premium subsidies with sunset clauses, the bundling of insurance with loans, and the creation of regulatory sandboxes to foster innovation in parametric insurance.

The report outlines a framework for sovereign transition planning based on five pillars: robust targets, a whole-of-government approach, green public financial management (PFM), a diverse policy mix, and transparency. It argues that integrating climate considerations into core budgetary processes (green PFM) is essential for coordinating action across all government departments. To address fiscal constraints and debt overhang, the report suggests alternative financing mechanisms, including carving out transition spending from deficit limits, utilizing GSS+ and sustainability-linked bonds, leveraging national development banks and sovereign wealth funds, and employing central bank monetary tools such as green asset purchases and adjusted collateral frameworks.

The report outlines a framework for credible sovereign transition planning based on five elements: robust targets, a 'whole-of-government' approach, green public financial management, integrated policy tools, and transparency. It addresses the challenge of 'debt overhang' in both developed and emerging markets, suggesting alternatives such as excluding transition spending from deficit calculations and utilizing GSS+ bonds. The document also examines the roles of national development banks, sovereign wealth funds, and central banks in mobilizing private capital and providing low-cost financing for climate action.

The document argues that Africa's energy transition is occurring along two simultaneous tracks: centralised infrastructure and decentralised, bottom-up systems. It contends that current climate finance is too narrow, focusing almost exclusively on sovereign borrowers and large projects while ignoring the retail layer of the transition. To address this, the author proposes a dual mandate that combines infrastructure finance with consumer and trade finance. The document suggests that National Development Banks (NDBs) should act as refinancers and risk aggregators to provide local-currency credit, blended guarantees, and capital recycling mechanisms to support households, MSMEs, and informal trade networks.

The report analyzes the complementary roles of VCEFs, MDBs, and NDBs in scaling climate finance, highlighting the potential for financial instruments like guarantees and catalytic equity to mobilize private investment. It identifies systemic barriers—such as complex accreditation and slow approval processes—and proposes a roadmap for non-financial collaboration through country platforms, technical assistance, and the creation of enabling policy environments. The document provides specific recommendations for the G20 Sustainable Finance Working Group to improve interoperability and leverage NDBs' local expertise to bridge the investment gap, particularly for adaptation in low-income countries.

The report analyzes the complementary roles of VCEFs, MDBs, and NDBs in the climate finance architecture, focusing on financial instruments like guarantees, equity, and local currency lending. It identifies systemic barriers such as complex accreditation and slow approval processes and proposes a framework for non-financial collaboration through country platforms, technical assistance, and the creation of enabling policy environments. The document provides a set of short- and mid-term recommendations to harmonize metrics, simplify due diligence, and unlock the potential of NDBs to increase the flow of climate finance to emerging markets and developing economies.

The document outlines a framework for 'country platforms'—mechanisms to align public and private finance behind country-led plans. It identifies six elements of effective platforms, including strong political leadership and integrated planning, and details the specific contributions of domestic institutions, international public institutions, and private finance providers.

The document outlines strategies for public development banks (PDBs) to enhance climate finance, focusing on Paris alignment, public-public collaborations, and private capital mobilization. It emphasizes the need for a bottom-up approach to ensure national ownership and the use of de-risking tools like guarantees to close investment gaps in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). Key recommendations include improving transparency in alignment assessments, expanding concessional funding for national development banks (NDBs), and supporting just energy transitions through the early retirement of coal plants.

The report examines the role of public development banks (PDBs) in supporting the adoption of domestic carbon markets in emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs). It identifies key benefits of these markets, such as directing private finance to emission reduction projects and helping countries retain carbon revenues locally to avoid paying full fees under mechanisms like the European Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). However, adoption is hindered by a lack of strategic integration, technical capacity gaps, and reputational risks associated with credit integrity. PDBs are positioned to address these barriers by providing strategic guidance, technical assistance for monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems, and innovative financial tools—such as minimum price floors and carbon-linked bonds—to manage risk and frontload finance. The report recommends increased coordination between national and multilateral PDBs, the sharing of best practices, and the development of comprehensive climate strategies to ensure carbon markets are embedded within national development goals.

The San Giorgio Group's 11th meeting focused on redirecting climate finance strategies amidst geopolitical uncertainty. Key recommendations include empowering National Development Banks (NDBs) to leverage domestic capital, reforming Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to prioritize private capital mobilization over direct project finance, and scaling adaptation finance through better insurance coordination and risk reduction. The group emphasizes shifting the climate narrative from 'doom and gloom' to one of economic opportunity and 'kitchen-table issues' to better engage policymakers and citizens. A concrete 2025 agenda includes launching 10-15 additional country platforms, operationalizing the Baku-to-Belem Roadmap for the New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG), and creating a network of insurance regulators for climate.

The report finds that climate ambition among public development banks (PDBs) is plateauing and highly polarized. While some institutions have adopted comprehensive Paris alignment and net-zero targets, over half of the 170 tracked PDBs show limited-to-no ambition. This divergence is closely linked to enabling factors: high-ambition PDBs typically benefit from supportive government policies, developed financial systems, and active membership in multi-institutional networks. Conversely, minimally ambitious PDBs often operate in contexts with weak policy support and underdeveloped investment pipelines. The report concludes that ambitious PDBs generate higher volumes of climate finance as a share of assets and recommends leveraging multi-institutional networks to lift less ambitious banks toward leading standards.

The report argues that while there is growing interest in adaptation finance, collaboration between international and national public development banks in EMDEs remains limited and often treats adaptation as a co-benefit rather than a primary goal. It identifies structural barriers—such as complex application processes, lack of shared taxonomies, and local currency risk—and proposes five strategic recommendations: complementary taxonomies, country platform approaches, regional adaptation hubs, capacity-building, and the use of blended finance to de-risk projects.

The report analyzes the roles of various public development banks (PDBs) in climate adaptation, identifying significant gaps in collaboration between international multilateral development banks (MDBs) and national development banks (NDBs). It highlights barriers such as misaligned project ticket sizes, lack of shared adaptation taxonomies, and local currency risks. To address these, the report recommends developing complementary taxonomies, utilizing country platforms and regional hubs, enhancing capacity-building, and leveraging blended finance to de-risk adaptation investments.

The report argues that fiscal policies—including roadmaps, tax incentives, guarantees, and subsidies—are essential to bridge the net-zero investment gap in the ASEAN+3 region. It identifies critical barriers such as a lack of suitable project pipelines, regulatory uncertainty, and the predominance of MSMEs. The document recommends a holistic approach combining these fiscal tools with non-fiscal policies like green taxonomies and mandatory climate disclosures to steer the financial sector toward sustainable development goals.

The report analyzes the limited scale of climate-related on-lending from multilateral development banks (MDBs) to national development banks (NDBs) and the divergence in their approaches to Paris alignment. It identifies operational frictions, such as currency risks and capacity gaps, and recommends strengthening collaboration through concessional support, clarified mandates, and shared institutional expertise.

The report finds that climate-related financial cooperation between MDBs and NDBs is currently limited, with approximately USD 7 billion in tracked flows from 2015 to 2022. There is significant divergence in how these institutions approach Paris alignment, with MDBs generally possessing more standardised targets and dedicated energy policies, while NDBs often anchor their goals in national NDCs. Key barriers to increased cooperation include currency risks, differing institutional mandates, and gaps in technical capacity. The authors recommend that MDBs optimise on-lending models, promote local currency instruments, and share expertise through platforms like Finance in Common to scale up climate investment.

The report finds limited existing climate cooperation between MDBs and NDBs and highlights a divergence in their progress toward Paris alignment. While MDBs generally have more standardized climate targets and energy policies, NDBs show greater variability and often align their goals with national determined contributions (NDCs). The authors identify operational barriers to on-lending, such as currency risks and institutional capacity gaps, and recommend optimizing operating models, clarifying climate mandates, and sharing expertise to scale global climate investment.

The report assesses the GCF's network of 113 accredited entities (AEs), evaluating their capacity to deliver on the Fund's strategic priorities. While the network is diverse and expanding—particularly in private sector and direct access entities—significant gaps remain in the ability of direct access entities (DAEs) to manage high environmental and social (E&S) risk projects and large-scale adaptation programming. The analysis highlights a low AE-to-project ratio, which may disincentivize institutional capacity building, and notes that GCF's internal processing capacity is currently insufficient to meet the growing volume of new and re-accreditation applications.

The report estimates that an average of USD 384 billion was invested annually in urban climate finance during 2017-2018, a figure significantly lower than the estimated annual need of USD 4.5 to 5.4 trillion for low-emission and resilient urban infrastructure. Mitigation efforts, particularly in sustainable transport and green buildings, dominate the landscape, while adaptation finance remains severely underfunded, representing only 9% of tracked project-level data. The analysis highlights a geographic imbalance, with the majority of finance flowing to China and developed economies, while regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia remain critically underfunded. Key barriers to scaling this finance include low creditworthiness of city governments, a lack of bankable projects, and institutional restrictions on local borrowing.