Search Climate Insights Directory

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.

This briefing outlines the Climate Policy Initiative's (CPI) framework for evaluating the efficiency of public financial interventions, such as green banks, in supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy. It focuses on identifying financial barriers and determining the most effective risk-bearing mechanisms and implementing institutions to address them.

The paper analyzes infrastructure finance in Brazil and India, finding that despite different structural models—Brazil's centralized development bank approach versus India's decentralized system—both remain dominated by public financing and lack the financial innovation seen in developed economies. It concludes that policy environments, such as Brazil's integrated regulatory and banking systems, are more influential than the finance models themselves, though centralized models demonstrate a greater ability to achieve scale and meet national policy targets.

The document outlines critical areas for climate finance at COP 21, emphasizing the need for developed countries to meet the $100 billion annual goal by 2020, increasing funding for adaptation, and improving transparency in reporting finance flows. It highlights recent pledges from various nations and argues for a shift in trillions of dollars from high-emissions to low-emissions activities.

The report identifies a significant gap in tracking private finance for climate adaptation, noting that less than 10% of publicly-mobilized private climate finance is directed toward adaptation. It proposes four methodological approaches—ranging from 'Direct' to 'Indirect Expanded'—to better capture how public interventions, including those providing enabling outputs like capacity building, trigger private investment. Through case studies in Northern Uganda and the African Risk Capacity, the authors demonstrate that relying solely on direct co-financing data leads to underestimations of mobilization. The report concludes that while indirect mobilization is harder to measure and carries higher risks of double counting, tracking it is essential to incentivize the upstream public support necessary for climate resilience.

The report addresses the difficulty in tracking private finance for climate adaptation, noting that it currently represents less than 10% of total mobilized private climate finance. It proposes four methodological approaches—ranging from direct co-finance to expanded indirect mobilization—and tests them using two case studies: the NU-TEC project in Northern Uganda and the African Risk Capacity (ARC) insurance mechanism. The findings highlight a trade-off between the accuracy and incentive potential of a method and its practicality and standardization potential. The authors conclude that relying solely on direct co-finance underestimates the impact of 'enabling' interventions like technical assistance and capacity building.

Global climate finance reached at least USD 391 billion in 2014, driven by a 26% increase in private investment in renewable energy and a steady rise in public finance. Private finance, totaling USD 243 billion, remains the largest source, with China emerging as a major hub for renewable energy investment. Public finance reached USD 148 billion, with Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) contributing the bulk of these funds. The report highlights a strong domestic preference, with 74% of total flows remaining within the country of origin. Mitigation projects dominated the landscape, accounting for 93% of total finance, while adaptation finance reached USD 25 billion.

The document examines the role of technical assistance (TA) in mobilizing climate finance, arguing that TA can be as valuable as financial assistance by addressing knowledge, policy, and risk gaps. Through case studies of GIZ programs in Chile, Mexico, Vietnam, and the Pacific Islands, it identifies five key TA pathways: policy advice, project development support, data provision, program coordination, and institutional capacity building. The analysis estimates that GIZ-managed TA funding of €43 million mobilized between €37-233 million in public finance and up to €412 million in private finance, though it notes high uncertainty in quantifying indirect mobilization due to time lags and complex causality.

This report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) analyzes the role of public finance in accelerating geothermal energy deployment in developing countries. Based on case studies from Turkey, Kenya, and Indonesia, the report demonstrates that public risk-mitigation measures can reduce the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) and allow governments to achieve electricity generation goals while spending only 15-35% of the resources required for sole public ownership.

The report argues that public finance for geothermal energy in developing countries must increase 7-10 fold to meet 2030 targets. Through case studies in Kenya, Indonesia, and Turkey, it demonstrates that public risk mitigation measures—such as concessional loans, guarantees, and exploration support—can reduce the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) by 35-48%, allowing governments to achieve deployment targets while spending only 15-35% of the resources required for full public ownership.

The report evaluates National Climate Change Funds (NCCFs), finding that they currently play a limited role in global climate finance, accounting for less than 0.2% of total flows in 2013. It identifies key barriers to resource mobilisation, including weak institutional capacities and a lack of clear vision, and proposes a structured three-step approach—defining vision, building capacity, and engaging investors—to improve their sustainability.

The report argues that while hundreds of billions are spent annually on land use, most are 'business-as-usual' (BAU) investments that may increase climate vulnerability. To shift this, the authors propose three tools: the Landscape of Land Use Finance to map current flows and gaps; the Financial Viability-Gap Analysis to identify where public incentives can make green projects financially feasible; and the Public Finance Mapping tool to ensure policy coherence and identify BAU subsidies. These tools aim to help low and middle-income countries scale up private investment in green agriculture, forestry, and land management.

The document examines the challenges and opportunities for geothermal energy in Indonesia, highlighting the Sarulla Geothermal Power Plant as a model for private sector involvement. It argues that while Indonesia has the world's largest geothermal potential (29GW), utilization remains below 5% due to regulatory hurdles, funding gaps, and high exploration risks. The Sarulla project, with a planned 330MW capacity, demonstrates how proven resources, public guarantees, and long-term feed-in tariffs can attract private investment and lower costs. The report concludes that public finance should be strategically focused on the high-risk exploration and field development phases to meet Indonesia's 2025 target of 7.6GW installed capacity.

The Climate Policy Initiative outlines a framework for mapping climate finance flows to establish investment baselines, reveal interactions between public and private finance, and identify opportunities for policy improvement. The guide emphasizes tracking project-level primary financing and total investments over additional costs, while cautioning against double-counting by excluding revenue supports like feed-in tariffs and private R&D. The author notes that data gaps, particularly in the land use sector, remain a challenge, leading to a collaboration with the European Forestry Institute and Climate Focus to develop specific mapping tools for that sector.

In July 2014, Egypt implemented significant energy subsidy cuts, including a 64% increase in diesel prices, as part of a five-year plan to eliminate most energy subsidies. The reforms aimed to reduce the budget deficit and signal economic stability to investors. While the cuts caused an initial spike in inflation and public discontent among lower-income groups and transport operators, the broader economic outlook improved, and large-scale protests were avoided. The report notes that the government's compensation measures were limited and ad hoc, and that the success of future reforms will depend on more robust social safety nets and the management of politically sensitive products like liquefied petroleum gas (LPG).

This case study examines the role of public finance in mitigating early-stage exploration risks for geothermal energy, focusing on the Gümüşköy Geothermal Power Plant in Turkey as the first instance of private sector financing for an unproven field in the country.

The document is a comprehensive manual for South African MPs to navigate the national budget cycle, understand the legal frameworks like the PFMA, and apply quantitative tools to assess budget priority, progress, equity, and adequacy.

The document analyzes the 'accountability chains' of various private financial instruments to determine if they share the climate-related goals necessary to be counted as climate finance. It contrasts public finance, which has a continuous accountability chain focused on public goods, with private instruments like commercial debt, where investors prioritize financial returns over climate outcomes. While green bonds and philanthropy show aligned goals, equity and remittances present complexities regarding transparency, reversibility, and the nature of the benefits delivered.

The document outlines the first Biennial Assessment (BA) of climate finance flows, highlighting the critical need for an internationally agreed-upon definition of 'climate finance' to ensure transparency and track progress toward the 2 degree Celsius target. It identifies significant data gaps in energy efficiency and private sector flows, and recommends that the COP strengthen measurement, reporting, and verification (MRV) systems to improve the comparability of global finance data.

In 2013, global climate finance flows totaled USD 331 billion, a decrease of USD 28 billion from 2012. This decline was primarily driven by a USD 31 billion drop in private investment, largely due to falling solar PV costs. Public finance remained stable at USD 137 billion, with Development Finance Institutions (DFIs) acting as the primary public source. Mitigation accounted for 91% of total flows, while adaptation received 7% (USD 25 billion), all of which originated from public sources. The report highlights a significant gap between current flows and the estimated USD 1.1 trillion annual investment needed in the energy sector to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.