Search Climate Insights Directory

Global climate finance more than doubled between 2018 and 2022, reaching USD 1.46 trillion in 2022, yet remains far below the USD 7.4 trillion annual average needed by 2030 for a 1.5°C scenario. Mitigation finance dominates the landscape, driven by renewable energy and electric vehicles in advanced economies and China, while adaptation finance, though growing, remains severely underfunded, particularly for Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS). The report highlights a critical imbalance, noting that fossil fuel subsidies reached USD 1.4 trillion in 2022, nearly equaling total climate finance. It recommends reforming the global financial architecture through increased concessional finance, risk mitigation, and the redirection of fossil fuel expenditures to close the investment gap.

In 2023, IDFC members committed $199 billion in green finance, a 31% decrease from 2022, largely due to currency depreciation in East Asia and the Pacific and the adoption of more conservative tracking methodologies. Climate finance dominated at 98% of total green finance, with mitigation accounting for 89% of that amount. Adaptation finance fell significantly to $10.5 billion, while biodiversity finance reached its lowest level since 2020 at $8.2 billion. The report emphasizes the role of public development banks (PDBs) in providing transformative finance and calls for the New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance (NCQG) to integrate 'transformational criteria' to better catalyze private investment.

In 2021/22, Nigeria received USD 2.5 billion in climate finance, a 32% increase from 2019/20, yet this remains far below the estimated annual need of USD 29.7 billion. Public actors provided 70% of the funding, led by multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs), while private finance accounted for 30%, primarily driven by corporate investments in solar PV. Mitigation efforts, particularly in energy systems, dominated the landscape, while adaptation finance reached only USD 735 million, covering just 6% of annual needs. The report highlights a heavy reliance on debt-based financing, which is concerning given Nigeria's high debt-servicing costs. Key barriers include the high cost of capital, a lack of bankable projects, and data gaps. The authors recommend operationalizing the National Climate Change Fund, prioritizing anticipatory adaptation, and pursuing innovative financing such as green bonds and debt-for-climate swaps.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and credits, asserting they are based on a flawed 'mitigation hierarchy' and fail to maintain ecosystem integrity. It argues that these schemes, often modelled on dysfunctional carbon markets, lead to greenwashing, land grabbing, and human rights violations, particularly against Indigenous Peoples. The authors call for a shift away from market-based financial flows toward non-market approaches, debt and tax justice, and the protection of land tenure rights.

The document critiques biodiversity offsets and certificates, asserting they are conceptually and methodologically flawed tools that facilitate nature destruction. It argues that these mechanisms, often modeled after failed carbon markets, ignore ecosystem integrity, lead to land grabbing, and violate the human rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. The authors call for a systemic shift away from market-based financialization toward community-led, rights-based conservation and the reduction of harmful financial flows.

The document explores Debt-for-Climate Swaps (DFCS) as a tool to break the 'Climate Crisis-Sovereign Debt Doom Loop' in Emerging Markets and Low-Income Developing Countries. It details bilateral and multipartite DFCS structures, analyzing their advantages, costs, and the role of credit enhancements. The report proposes a quantitative model to identify suitable countries across Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, and Asia-Pacific, and outlines how the GCF can intervene through financial support, technical assistance, and stakeholder coordination.

The document examines the proposed regulatory framework to cap GHG emissions in Canada's oil and gas sector. It argues that existing carbon pricing is insufficient to incentivize decarbonization, as profit margins for production remain higher than those for emissions reductions. While the cap is deemed necessary for Canada to meet its Paris Agreement goals, the author warns that a 25-million-tonne 'compliance flexibility' cushion—comprising a Decarbonization Fund, domestic offsets, and Internationally Transferred Mitigation Outcomes (ITMOs)—could dilute the cap's impact by up to 25%. The brief specifically cautions against the use of ITMOs for LNG exports, citing risks of double counting, lack of additionality, and potential fossil fuel subsidies.

The briefing provides a comprehensive table of condensed negotiation options for the NCQG, covering its preamble, quantitative and qualitative structure, temporal scope, contributor base, and transparency arrangements. It synthesizes submissions from various Parties and groups to streamline the decision-making process for the CMA6.

The report argues that the 'environment' pillar of One Health is often under-prioritized and proposes six key strategies—landscape immunity, wildlife trade regulation, preventive medicine, pathogen monitoring, sustainable livestock management, and behaviour change—to reduce zoonotic spillover and spillback. It emphasizes transdisciplinary collaboration, gender equity, and the inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to create resilient ecosystems and improve public health outcomes.

The author contends that traditional engineering solutions like levees and dams are insufficient against increasing extreme rainfall and sea-level rise in Europe. The text highlights the failure of 'maladaptive responses' and advocates for nature-based solutions, such as floodplain restoration, while acknowledging the economic and systemic barriers to transitioning away from concrete-based infrastructure.

A small group of community members in southern Zambia spent 13 years restoring a 300-metre stretch of the Nsongwe River through desilting and reforestation, which successfully revived natural springs and attracted wildlife. This local effort has been scaled up by the Climate Adaptation and Protected Areas (CAPA) Initiative, supported by IISD, WWF Zambia, and Global Affairs Canada. The expanded project now includes restoring the river and its tributaries (Lubemba and Lutwa streams), restoring 400 hectares of forest, and constructing check dams and fire breaks to improve water recharge and protect biodiversity in the Kavango–Zambezi landscape.

The document serves as a bridge between the technical, 3,000-page IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (Working Group II) and practical application by distilling its findings on gender, equity, and justice. It emphasizes that effective climate adaptation requires a 'whole-of-society approach' involving governments, civil society, and the private sector. To increase the uptake of inclusive approaches, the brief provides illustrative examples and a companion comic, specifically contextualizing these messages through experiences in Africa, such as childcare programs in Kigali to support women's participation in nature-based solutions.

Carbon Market Watch strongly opposes integrating greenhouse gas removals (GGRs) into the UK ETS, asserting that emissions and removals are not equivalent and that such a move would cause mitigation deterrence. The organization argues that GGRs are a weaker form of mitigation and that their inclusion could lead to an overreliance on cheap, unsustainable options. If integration were to occur, they insist on maintaining the gross cap, issuing allowances ex-post, and implementing a strict permanence framework. They specifically oppose the inclusion of woodland units due to their lack of permanence and the 'carbon debt' they create. Instead, they recommend 'indirect inclusion' where ETS revenues fund GGR projects, or the creation of a separate Removals Trading Scheme.

The report argues that because Nature-based Solutions (NbS) are often viewed as public goods and are in a nascent stage of commercial development, they require a combination of ecosystem building, public sector incentives, and specific de-risking tools. It identifies guarantees as the most catalytic instruments for attracting private capital and emphasizes that technical assistance and concessional capital must be used to prove commercial viability before NbS can scale through direct investment alone.

The report analyzes eight nature-based solutions (NbS) case studies across the EU and China, focusing on land, water, urban, and financing ecosystems. It evaluates these projects against the UNEA-5 definition and IUCN Global Standard, highlighting successes in large-scale landscape restoration and the role of research programs like Horizon 2020. Key findings emphasize that while NbS are increasingly mainstreamed, challenges remain in inclusive governance and private sector financing. The document recommends enhanced bilateral lesson-sharing, the development of a global costs-benefits database, and the use of standardized assessment tools to prevent greenwashing.

The document analyzes the global bioeconomy, estimating its current value at US$ 4-5 trillion with potential growth to US$ 30 trillion by 2050. It proposes a tripartite spectrum—Nature-Intensive, Advanced, and High-Tech bioeconomies—to better apply distinct financing and policy strategies. The report identifies significant funding gaps, particularly for first-of-a-kind (FOAK) projects and in the Global South, and advocates for an 'integrated approach' combining national strategies, international cooperation (via the G20), and innovative financial tools like biodiversity credits and blended finance to ensure a just transition.

The report examines 12 blended finance case studies across sectors like restoration, bioeconomy, and the blue economy to demonstrate how to attract private investment into Nature-based Solutions (NbS). It argues that because nature is often a public good with difficult-to-monetize benefits, the public sector must play a critical role in creating enabling ecosystems through technical assistance and concessional capital. Key findings highlight that guarantees are among the most effective tools for mitigating risk, while engaging direct beneficiaries (such as insurance companies or utilities) can create sustainable revenue streams. The document details specific instruments, such as the Galápagos debt-for-nature swap and the Seychelles Blue Bond, to provide replicable models for G20 countries.

The report examines the application of blended finance to scale Nature-based Solutions (NbS), highlighting that while no single approach exists, tools like guarantees, technical assistance, and the engagement of direct beneficiaries are critical for de-risking investments. Through 12 case studies, it demonstrates how concessional capital can be used to build ecosystems, prove commercial viability, and mobilize private investment in nascent markets. Key examples include the Galápagos Debt Conversion and the Seychelles Blue Bond, which use credit enhancements to lower the cost of capital for marine conservation.

CPI has introduced a bespoke taxonomy and machine learning model to better capture private sector adaptation finance, increasing the annual average tracked flows from USD 1 billion to USD 4.7 billion for the 2019-2022 period. The analysis identifies significant gaps in reporting, particularly among insurers and pension funds, while highlighting that the majority of project-level private investment is concentrated in the water and sanitation sector. The report also estimates that annual consumer and household spending on high-adaptation-likelihood products ranges between USD 48 billion and USD 61 billion.

Tracked urban climate finance reached USD 831 billion in 2021/2022, more than doubling since 2017/2018. However, this remains severely insufficient compared to estimated annual mitigation needs of USD 4.3 trillion by 2030. Finance is heavily concentrated in developed economies and China, with critical gaps in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. While mitigation flows are dominated by transport and buildings, adaptation finance is significantly lower at USD 10 billion, primarily focused on water and wastewater. The report advocates for a '4C Urban Climate Finance Agenda'—Commitment, Collaboration, Capacity, and Capital Mobilization—to bridge the investment gap.