Search Climate Insights Directory

The document outlines the structure and process for developing GCF Country Programmes, which serve as the foundation for prioritizing climate finance proposals. It details five mandatory components: country context, climate finance strategy, project priorities, institutional needs, and stakeholder engagement. The guide emphasizes alignment with national climate plans (such as NDCs and NAPs) and the role of Accredited Entities in implementing these priorities over four-year programming cycles.

The guide outlines the structure and requirements for GCF country programmes, which serve as the foundation for prioritizing climate projects and mobilizing finance. It details five essential components: country context, climate finance strategy, priority GCF projects, institutional needs, and stakeholder engagement. The document emphasizes alignment with national climate plans (such as NDCs and NAPs) and collaboration with Accredited Entities to transform priorities into funding proposals.

Between 2018 and 2020, Côte d’Ivoire implemented a series of institutional, legal, and financial measures to mainstream gender into its climate strategies, including the creation of a National Gender and Climate Change Platform and the development of a National Gender and Climate Change Strategy for 2020–2024.

Between 2018 and 2020, Côte d'Ivoire implemented several political, legal, and institutional measures to integrate gender equality into climate action. Key achievements include the creation of the National Gender and Climate Change Strategy 2020–2024, the establishment of a National Gender and Climate Change Platform, and the integration of gender as a cross-cutting theme in the revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The government also developed methodological guides for vulnerability assessments and provided national gender advisors to the Ministry of the Environment.

Between 2018 and 2020, Côte d’Ivoire implemented a series of policy, institutional, and financial measures to mainstream gender into climate action. Key achievements include the creation of the National Gender and Climate Change Strategy 2020–2024, the establishment of a National Gender and Climate Change Platform, and the integration of gender considerations into the National Adaptation Plan (NAP) funding proposal and the revised Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs).

The report argues that emissions trading mechanisms under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement risk undermining global mitigation ambition and causing human rights violations. It proposes three essential policy pillars—robust public participation, social and environmental safeguards, and independent grievance mechanisms—as prerequisites for any such framework. The document highlights failures in previous systems like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and provides examples of 'good policies' from development finance institutions to guide the UNFCCC in creating a rights-compliant rulebook.

Colombia has committed to reducing GHG emissions by 51% by 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2050. While the government has developed a robust legal framework for climate mitigation and adaptation, the report finds a critical gap in Just Transition planning. Massive layoffs are already occurring in the thermal coal sector due to falling international prices and the shift toward renewables, yet the government has not implemented specific policy responses to support affected workers. Similarly, conservation efforts in the AFOLU sector, particularly the expansion of protected areas and páramo ecosystems, threaten the livelihoods of informal rural workers and ethnic communities. The report concludes that Colombia's Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) system lacks the capacity to track social welfare and employment impacts, and recommends urgent, regionally differentiated strategies for economic diversification and worker retraining.

The report examines how developing nations can adapt the 'just transition' framework—traditionally focused on developed economies—to their unique socio-economic contexts, particularly regarding high levels of informal employment. Through case studies in Indonesia, Ghana, and Colombia, it finds that awareness of just transition is low among government officials and that Covid-19 responses have generally not been linked to climate mitigation or adaptation strategies. The document argues for a multidimensional approach that places workers and marginalized communities at the center of decision-making and provides guidelines for national governments to build institutional foundations and participatory processes for a fair low-carbon transition.

The report examines the challenges and opportunities of implementing just transition (JT) frameworks in developing nations, highlighting the critical role of the informal economy and the need for context-specific definitions. Through case studies in Colombia, Ghana, and Indonesia, it finds that while some governments are beginning to incorporate JT into climate plans—most notably Colombia in its revised NDCs—awareness remains low and inter-ministerial coordination is often lacking. The document emphasizes that COVID-19 recovery packages have generally not been linked to climate mitigation or adaptation strategies. It provides guidelines for national governments to foster inclusive decision-making, build institutional capacity, and engage marginalized groups, including informal workers and traditional leaders.

The report finds that while most informal sector workers and traditional leaders in Ghana observe clear climate change signals, they are largely excluded from the development of national climate policies and have minimal knowledge of 'just transition' strategies. It highlights that COVID-19 restrictions severely impacted informal businesses, with many unable to access government stimulus packages due to lack of documentation or political patronage. The study recommends formalizing the role of Traditional Councils and worker associations in climate policy to ensure a more inclusive and sustainable transition.

The report examines the application of just transition principles in developing countries, highlighting the need for context-specific definitions and the inclusion of the informal economy. Through case studies in Indonesia, Ghana, and Colombia, it finds that while awareness of just transition varies—with Colombia being the only one to explicitly include it in its revised NDC—there is a general lack of practical application and cross-ministerial coordination. The document emphasizes that Covid-19 responses have not yet been linked to climate strategies and recommends a participatory, co-produced approach to policy development to ensure marginalized groups are not left behind.

The report finds that Just Transition is a relatively new and poorly understood concept within the Indonesian government, characterized by institutional silos and a lack of coordination between the Ministry of Environment and Forestry and the Ministry of Manpower. While Indonesia is a signatory to the Solidarity and Just Transition Silesia Declaration, the report notes that Just Transition is unlikely to be explicitly incorporated into the country's updated NDC, though it has been discussed for the 2050 Long Term Strategy for Low Carbon and Climate Resilience. Key gaps include the lack of a dedicated institution for the informal economy, which constitutes up to 60.5% of employment, and the disconnect between Covid-19 recovery responses and climate transition strategies. The Dala Institute recommends using informal knowledge-sharing webinars to engage stakeholders and suggests leveraging the Ministry of Manpower's 'Kartu Prakerja' pre-employment training program to mainstream Just Transition elements.

The policy brief positions carbon dioxide removal (CDR) as a public good and service, similar to wastewater treatment, because most approaches do not generate independent revenues and are avoided by commercial finance. It recommends that governments implement specific absolute volume targets for CDR within Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), provide dedicated subsidies, and eliminate regulatory barriers such as underground storage permitting. To ensure long-term scalability, the brief advocates for a universal carbon price, the integration of CDR into Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and the development of robust monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) methodologies to maintain environmental integrity.

The report details a virtual workshop held on January 21, 2021, which brought together over 200 participants from more than 60 countries to discuss domestic climate finance tracking. Key discussions centered on integrating climate budget tagging into national planning, the role of taxonomies in mobilizing private capital, and the necessity of credible sectoral roadmaps to align financial flows with the Paris Agreement. The document highlights specific national examples, such as Indonesia's use of budget tagging for Green Sukuk issuance and South Africa's development of a green finance taxonomy.

The report finds that finance for energy access in high-impact countries (HICs) remains critically insufficient. In 2019, tracked electricity finance in HICs fell to USD 32 billion, with residential access funding at less than one-third of the required annual investment. Clean cooking investment has stagnated around USD 130 million annually, far below the USD 4.5 billion needed. While private investment in clean cooking reached a peak of USD 56 million in 2019, multilateral DFI support plummeted. The report emphasizes the need for climate-resilient infrastructure, as seen in Mozambique, and highlights divergent technological paths in Ghana (LPG) and Vietnam (biogas).

The document argues that while climate obstruction is well-studied in the Global North, it remains largely unexplored in the Global South. It proposes ten research themes to analyze how developmentalism, political leadership, transnational links, and domestic energy policies contribute to the delay of climate action. The authors highlight the role of 'organized hypocrisy' where sovereignty claims are used to shield unsustainable practices, and note the influence of external donors and the potential for green technology to create new socio-ecological injustices.

The annex evaluates the gap between the economic mitigation potential of forests and the quantitative targets set in NDCs for 32 high-potential countries. It identifies a global annual finance need for forest protection and restoration ranging from USD 45 billion to USD 460 billion, while noting that current 'green finance' flows are significantly lower than 'grey finance' flows directed toward sectors like agriculture.

The document argues that the financial system's current inertia and short-term bias prevent the redirection of private capital toward net-zero, climate-resilient economies. It emphasizes that limiting warming to 1.5°C is technically feasible but requires a dramatic scale-up of investment in energy, land, urban, and industrial systems. The report advocates for a dual approach of 'market fixing' (carbon pricing and risk disclosure) and 'market shaping' (de-risking and policy support) to overcome investment barriers. In the context of Covid-19, it highlights the risk of 'colourless' recovery packages entrenching fossil fuel dependence and proposes integrating NDCs into investment plans, alleviating debt through climate swaps, utilizing multi-sovereign guarantee funds, and expanding green bond markets to support developing nations.

The 2021 state of global environmental governance was characterized by a heavy reliance on voluntary commitments and a transition toward hybrid and virtual negotiation formats due to the COVID-19 pandemic. While some substantive outcomes were achieved—such as the finalization of the Paris Agreement rulebook at COP26 and the adoption of the Marseille Manifesto by the IUCN—many multilateral environmental agreements were limited to procedural decisions. The report highlights a growing gap between political promises and actual implementation, alongside increasing global inequalities in vaccine access and digital connectivity that hinder inclusive environmental governance.

The 2021 state of global environmental governance was characterized by a shift toward voluntary pledges and a struggle to maintain multilateral progress during the COVID-19 pandemic. While some major meetings, such as the Glasgow COP, returned to in-person formats, many other processes remained in a 'maintenance mode' with only procedural outcomes. The report highlights a growing gap between environmental promises and action, exacerbated by systemic inequalities and vaccine disparity, which hinder the collective ability of states to address climate, nature, and pollution crises.