Search Climate Insights Directory

The document analyzes four international policy mechanisms—US hydrogen tax credits, Norway's carbon capture and storage in the North Sea, the UK's Contracts for Difference for renewable electricity, and Australia's Green Bank—to derive strategic lessons for Canada's clean energy transition. It evaluates the strengths, limitations, and applicable lessons of each approach, focusing on reducing financial risk, leveraging comparative advantages, and ensuring cost-efficiency in public spending.

The document outlines the deadlock at SB62 over climate finance, where the G77 and Arab Group pushed for accountability and structural reform of international finance, while the Umbrella Group emphasized private investment. No clear way forward was reached on providing financial resources, leaving the operationalization of the US$1.3 trillion target and adaptation finance gaps to be addressed through further consultations and at COP30.

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 proposal addresses Cambodia's vulnerability to climate change, specifically how severe flooding and sea-level rise exacerbate pollution from poorly managed solid waste and wastewater in coastal areas. It seeks GCF funding to revisit national policy and build the capacity of the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Public Works and Transport, and local authorities in Preah Sihanouk and Krong Kaeb. The initiative aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from untreated effluent and protect livelihood-providing ecosystems by improving coordination and attracting private sector investment for low-emission, resilient infrastructure.

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) is reviewing its accreditation framework to address imbalances in its portfolio of accredited entities (AEs) and the time-consuming nature of the current process. A consultant's review found that while standards are appropriate, the portfolio is under-representative of direct access and private sector entities. Proposed improvements include streamlining the technical review process by using external consultants and a roster of firms, with an estimated 2019 budget of USD 700,000 for Stage II reviews. Additionally, the GCF proposes a Project-Specific Assessment Approach (PSAA) as a complementary modality to allow entities to be assessed for a single project rather than undergoing full institutional accreditation. The PSAA targets direct access entities and projects in the Micro to Small categories, with a proposed 2019 budget of USD 600,000 for its implementation.

The document introduces a guidebook and a series of reports focused on the management and financing of soil rehabilitation in China. It aims to harness green finance approaches to attract private investors and blend public and private capital for the remediation of contaminated soils, supporting China's environmental priorities and its first soil pollution law.

The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) argues that COVID-19 recovery spending provides a critical opportunity to shift public finance away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy. The proposed blueprint includes stopping public funding for fossil fuel production, reforming subsidies and implementing taxes to raise an estimated USD 553 billion annually, and incentivizing private investment in clean electricity. The framework emphasizes a just transition involving dialogue between workers, employers, and governments to ensure no one is left behind during the energy transition.

The Zero Hunger Private Sector Pledge is a non-binding initiative launched ahead of the September 2021 UN Food Systems Summit to align private sector operations and investments with evidence-based interventions to end hunger. Companies participating in the pledge must make financial commitments in specific high-impact areas and priority countries, comply with international human rights and agricultural principles, and agree to public progress tracking by the World Benchmarking Alliance. As of September 20, 2021, 42 companies have pledged over USD 345 million across 34 countries. The initiative focuses on three key pillars: empowering the excluded, investing in food producers, and reducing losses while supporting SMEs, with a planned sunset date in 2030.

The document reflects on the governance of climate finance in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, noting that these regions are most vulnerable to climate change despite contributing the least to it. It identifies three key regional trends: the balance between adaptation and mitigation, the distinction between public and private financing, and the influence of regional development banks.

Amory Lovins defends his position that nuclear power lacks a viable business case, noting that new U.S. reactors cannot attract private capital despite significant subsidies. He contrasts this with the growth of renewables, which attracted $131 billion in global private investment in the previous year.

The Sustainable Energy for All (SE4All) Global Facilitation Team (GFT) was established in July 2013 to catalyze the achievement of three 2030 targets: universal energy access, doubling energy efficiency, and doubling the share of renewable energy. In its first six months, the GFT established its office in Vienna, formed four Advisory Board Committees (Finance, Energy Access, Energy Efficiency, and Renewable Energy), and engaged 83 developing countries. Financial reports as of December 31, 2013, show total contributions of US$ 4,745,456 from Denmark and Sweden, with an overall expenditure delivery rate of 23%.

The paper analyzes the use of public financing instruments by the World Bank Group, GEF, and CTF to identify ways to increase private sector investment in climate projects in developing countries. It recommends expanding the use of equity and guarantees, targeting grants to poorer countries and new technologies, and addressing institutional barriers such as streamlined fee structures and improved internal coordination.

The paper identifies key factors and recommendations for achieving 'transformational' change in low-carbon energy, defined by large magnitude impact, non-linear growth, and long-term sustainability. Through the analysis of 20 case studies, the authors categorize experiences into transformational, potentially transformational, and missed opportunities, highlighting the roles of regulatory frameworks, financial incentives, and national ownership.

The document serves as a reference guide defining various financing instruments—including loans, equity, and de-risking tools—designed to leverage private capital for low-carbon markets in developing countries. It is derived from a larger WRI working paper and focuses on how public donors, development finance institutions, and international mechanisms can mobilize investment into sectors such as renewable energy and energy efficiency.

The document serves as a reference for public sector decision-makers by mapping the financial instruments employed by development financial institutions, export credit agencies, and climate funds. It is derived from a larger WRI working paper focused on how multilateral agencies can leverage private capital for climate-relevant investments in developing countries, emphasizing the need for complementary domestic policies to create attractive market conditions.

The document outlines the urgent need for increased financial flows to meet Paris Agreement goals, noting that global mitigation investments must increase by a factor of 36 by 2030 to limit warming to 2°C. It identifies a three-stage process for financing NDCs—planning, implementation, and monitoring—and suggests that governments utilize a mix of financial, fiscal, and policy instruments to mobilize both public and private finance. The report highlights that developing countries face significant gaps, with reported financial needs reaching $4.3 trillion, far exceeding existing pledges.

The document outlines the need for a new financial agreement under the UNFCCC to overcome technology barriers in developing countries, noting that annual mitigation investments of USD $200 to $210 billion will be required by 2030 to stabilize global GHG emissions.

The paper analyzes the roles of OPIC and Ex-Im Bank in climate finance, noting that together they intermediated 37% (over $2 billion) of total US assistance to developing countries for climate activities between 2010 and 2012. It argues that tailoring financial instruments—such as loans, guarantees, and insurance—to specific sectoral risks can unlock private finance. The authors highlight a complementary relationship where OPIC often acts as a first-mover for high-risk projects, while Ex-Im Bank provides inexpensive concessional debt for more established players. Recommendations include increasing instrument flexibility, addressing institutional barriers like employee incentives and staffing, and improving coordination between public financial institutions to streamline due diligence and co-financing.

The paper identifies five primary categories of challenges—definitions, classifications, financial instruments, sources, and institutional arrangements—that hinder Indonesia, the Philippines, and Vietnam from effectively monitoring climate finance. It argues that improving these capacities requires new institutional arrangements, standardized definitions, and international support from developed countries.

The report examines open governance in climate finance, finding that while transparency has increased due to UNFCCC requirements, significant gaps remain, particularly in private finance and the decision-making processes of bilateral funders. It argues that transparency, participation, and accountability are mutually reinforcing and that current enforcement mechanisms for international public and private finance are insufficient.