Search Climate Insights Directory

The Green Climate Fund (GCF) offers developing countries a one-time grant of up to USD 3 million through its Readiness Programme to support country-driven adaptation activities and catalyze larger investments. To improve the quality of proposals, the GCF Secretariat identifies ten key criteria: clarifying focus (national, sectoral, or local), using country-specific impacts and vulnerabilities rather than templates, building private sector ownership, designing an adaptation investment vision, articulating a 'Theory of Change', avoiding duplication of existing assessments, integrating gender and social dimensions, engaging stakeholders including civil society and sub-national governments, aligning with other funds like the GEF and Adaptation Fund, and utilizing a phased approach for multiple proposals over time.

The document describes the establishment of County Climate Change Funds (CCCFs) in five Kenyan counties—Garissa, Isiolo, Kitui, Makueni, and Waji—to manage investments aimed at reducing climate risk and achieving adaptation priorities. It notes that developing countries need significant financing for National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes, which should be sourced from domestic public, international public, and private finance.

The document focuses on Albania's efforts to integrate climate adaptation into its medium-term budgeting process, noting that developing countries require significant financing from domestic, international, and private sources to implement national adaptation plan (NAP) processes.

The document analyzes the challenges and opportunities for expanding electricity access in Tanzania, focusing on the role of the private sector and the AfDB. It highlights the financial instability of the national utility, TANESCO, and the impact of recurring droughts on hydropower. The paper argues for a shift toward renewable energy and the development of a local renewable energy value chain to support industrialization and rural access.

The document highlights the necessity of private sector finance to meet the Paris Agreement's targets and the International Energy Agency's investment requirements for limiting temperature increase to 2°C. It provides a set of strategic lessons for governments and stakeholders to attract private investment, emphasizing context-specific approaches, public policy, risk-sharing measures, and the involvement of private actors in project design.

The 2017 Global Landscape of Climate Finance report finds that global climate finance peaked at $437 billion in 2015 before declining by 12% to $383 billion in 2016. The 2015 surge was primarily driven by private renewable energy investments in China, the U.S., and Japan. While solar and wind investments are largely on track for 2°C goals, other sectors like energy efficiency and adaptation remain significantly underfunded. Public finance is increasingly focused on energy efficiency, while multilateral development finance institutions (DFIs) are progressing toward their 2020 targets. The report highlights a strong preference for domestic investment, with 79% of finance remaining within the country of origin during 2015/2016.

The document discusses the emergence of 36 agricultural growth poles and 9 corridors across 23 African countries, covering 3.5 million hectares. It argues that while these initiatives aim to attract private investment and drive economic transformation, they require strong regulatory frameworks to avoid exacerbating inequalities or depleting natural resources.

The document analyses 64 agricultural adaptation projects in sub-Saharan Africa approved between 2010 and 2016, finding that 61% involved the private sector. It categorises this involvement into three levels: stimulating future investment through awareness and business models, using private actors as service providers for public activities, and leveraging private capital through incentives. While the first two roles are more common, the report finds limited evidence of large-scale private investment being leveraged, with one notable exception in Madagascar. The authors argue that project designers should identify commercial opportunities across the entire value chain from the start to better attract diverse private actors.

The document outlines five key strategies for governments to foster private investment in energy-efficient buildings: ensuring policy stability, aggregating projects to achieve scale, adopting standardized certifications and data, tailoring approaches to different market segments, and implementing sequenced policy packages. It highlights that while investors see opportunities in energy infrastructure, they require predictable outcomes and reduced transaction costs to commit capital.

The paper examines how insurance can mitigate high resource and drilling risks to attract private sector investment in geothermal energy, specifically focusing on capacity-building efforts in Kenya and Ethiopia.

The document outlines a strategic process for landscape restoration leaders to transition from a reliance on public finance to attracting private investment. It details four essential steps: identifying and engaging the right investors based on risk tolerance and growth stage; developing a comprehensive business plan focusing on the business model, management, finance, and deal structure; establishing a legal investable entity to channel funds; and tracking financial and operating performance to provide proof of concept. The guide emphasizes that private investors, except for impact investors, prioritize financial returns over environmental benefits and compare restoration ventures against opportunities in other industries.

The document examines the intersection of private sector activity and climate policy, highlighting the potential for a 'new industrial revolution' in green technology. It balances optimism regarding falling costs of renewables and new financial instruments with warnings about 'brown pillars' of the economy, market failures, and the risk of social dislocation similar to that seen during globalisation. The author argues for a public-private partnership where governments shape markets and provide social safety nets to ensure a just transition.

The document details the methodology for the Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2017, defining climate finance as capital flows for low-carbon and climate-resilient development. It specifies the inclusion of mitigation, adaptation, and dual-benefit finance while excluding fossil fuel-based lower-carbon generation and private R&D. The accounting scope focuses on annual financial commitments, covering grants, loans, equity, and balance sheet financing, while excluding risk management instruments and secondary market transactions to avoid double counting. It further defines the classification of public and private finance, the data sources used (such as BNEF and OECD), and the sectoral breakdowns for mitigation and adaptation activities.

The document outlines a strategic framework for financing National Adaptation Plan (NAP) processes, distinguishing between the 'elaboration phase' (planning and coordination) and the 'execution phase' (implementation of priority measures). It identifies four primary funding streams: domestic public revenues, bilateral providers, multilateral funds, and the private sector. While elaboration is typically funded by public and bilateral grants, the more costly execution phase requires a diversified mix of public and private capital. The brief recommends that countries develop a dedicated NAP financing strategy that identifies funding gaps, determines appropriate financial instruments, and defines operational steps to improve access to resources.

The document examines the tension between 'mainstreaming' climate change adaptation—integrating it into development, business, and other policy sectors—and treating it as a specialized 'silo' of expertise. Drawing on the Adaptation Futures 2016 conference, it argues that neither approach is inherently superior; rather, the choice depends on the specific purpose and context. While mainstreaming promotes resource efficiency and policy coherence (particularly regarding poverty reduction), the author notes that it can make adaptation progress invisible, complicating monitoring, evaluation, and the tracking of earmarked finance. The brief highlights the expansion of mainstreaming into business operations and city planning, while recommending a pragmatic approach that recognizes the value of both integrated and stand-alone adaptation efforts.

The document examines the potential for private climate finance in Rwanda, noting that while the government has prioritized private investment in policy, a strong enabling environment for adaptation has not yet been created. It identifies significant barriers including high credit costs (interest rates up to 20%), landlocked geography, and inadequate electricity supply. The brief concludes that foreign direct investment is currently negligible and suggests that efforts should instead focus on empowering local Rwandan businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, through tailored incentives and increased awareness of climate risks and opportunities.

The document argues that achieving NDC goals requires substantial private sector investment in low-carbon, climate-resilient infrastructure. It proposes using Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs) to create the policy and financial frameworks necessary to make these investments competitive against carbon-intensive alternatives by addressing investment barriers and risks.

The report identifies that while climate change acts as a stressor to existing business risks, it also creates opportunities for Bangladeshi companies to develop new products, access new markets, and achieve cost savings. It highlights specific opportunities in the energy, agriculture, insurance, and banking/finance sectors, such as solar home systems and climate-resilient seeds. To overcome scaling challenges, the report recommends utilizing the Green Climate Fund's Private Sector Facility (PSF) and building strategic partnerships with NGOs, government agencies, and international development partners.

The document examines the financing gap for Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions (NAMAs), noting that demand for implementation funding far exceeds available dedicated supply. It identifies several barriers to investment, including a narrow focus on specific donor requirements, a lack of financial planning expertise in project design, and misalignment with the investment logic of multilateral development banks. The paper argues that NAMAs must diversify their funding sources and integrate with the Green Climate Fund (GCF) to achieve transformational impact, while recommending early engagement with finance ministries and the private sector to improve project bankability.

The policy brief examines the challenges of developing a robust accounting framework for climate finance under the UNFCCC, following a decision reached at the Paris negotiations. It identifies two competing approaches to accounting: one focused on 'meeting financial obligations' (assessing the effort of developed nations) and another on 'tracking resilient/low carbon finance' (assessing the total scale of global resources). The authors argue that current practices, particularly the OECD DAC Rio marker methodology, fail because they mix these two approaches, leading to overestimations, double counting, and a lack of transparency. The brief recommends that the SBSTA adopt a two-track approach to develop separate accounting systems for each purpose and establish an internationally agreed baseline to verify the additionality of financial contributions.