Search Climate Insights Directory

The report examines the financing of renewable energy in China, highlighting the transition from an electricity surcharge system to potential environmental fiscal measures. It analyzes global investment trends, the types and risks of renewable energy subsidies, and provides a framework for designing a carbon tax to fund the energy transition, drawing on international examples from Europe and North America.

This case study describes the Climate Policy Initiative's (CPI) methodology for identifying effective public financial interventions for low-carbon projects, using large-scale renewable energy in California as an example.

The Eskom CSP project in South Africa is a 100 MW power tower plant utilizing 9-12 hours of thermal energy storage and a dry-cooled steam cycle. Because the levelized cost of electricity for CSP (0.28-0.33 USD/kWh) exceeds that of coal, hydro, and gas, the project relies on 100% public financing, including USD 995 million in highly subsidized debt from six international finance institutions (IFIs) with rates below 2%. Eskom manages technology risks by contracting an Owner's Engineer for design and an EPC contractor for construction and early operation. The project aims to reduce technology costs, create local supply chains, and improve energy security in a country targeting 3.3 GW of CSP by 2030.

The document argues that public finance is essential to close the 'viability gap' for CSP, as more than 98% of plants built by 2012 required such support. It highlights that while international financial institutions (IFIs) provide critical long-term debt and concessional finance, currency hedging costs often offset these benefits. The authors suggest that deploying 5-15GW of CSP could reduce electricity production costs by 14-44%, potentially making the technology competitive in Morocco and South Africa. Key recommendations include moving away from flat tariffs to remunerate the flexibility provided by thermal storage and transitioning from international to local private debt to ensure long-term sustainability.

This case study analyzes the 100 MW Rajasthan Sun Technique concentrated solar power (CSP) plant in India, examining how a combination of national policy, foreign public debt, and private risk management enabled the project despite broader failures in India's National Solar Mission (NSM) phase one. While the project demonstrates the viability of linear Fresnel technology and the importance of long-term public financing, it also highlights the 'winner's curse' associated with reverse auctioning schemes that led to underestimated costs and project delays across the sector.

The document outlines the state of climate finance negotiations leading up to COP19, focusing on the mobilization of US$100 billion per year by 2020 and the operationalization of the Green Climate Fund. It details the work of the Standing Committee on Finance, the challenges facing the Adaptation Fund due to falling carbon prices, and the need for 'enabling environments' in both developed and developing countries to attract and deploy investment. The guide emphasizes that providing financial assurance to developing countries is critical for securing their commitment to a new global climate agreement in 2015.

Global climate finance plateaued at USD 359 billion in 2012, falling short of investment needs for a 2°C pathway. While private actors provided 62% of the total, a strong domestic preference exists, with 76% of finance spent within the country of origin. Public finance, particularly through Development Finance Institutions (DFIs), remains critical for addressing risk and funding adaptation, though significant knowledge gaps persist in tracking private adaptation and energy efficiency flows.

CCORAL (Caribbean Climate Online Risk and Adaptation TooL) is an open-access online system developed by the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre (CCCCC) to help Caribbean government agencies, NGOs, and the private sector mainstream climate resilience into daily decision-making. The tool provides a screening exercise to prioritise climate-influenced activities, high-level guidance for both experts and non-experts, and a toolbox of over 70 climate risk management resources. It is specifically designed to fit into existing organisational processes such as national planning, budgeting, and legislation to avoid the high economic costs of climate inaction in the region.

The document describes the need for a transformational change in how CARICOM countries approach climate resilience, advocating for the integration of risk management into national planning and policy. It highlights the failures of previous guidelines and proposes a new process involving pilot projects in up to five countries, the 'three ones' principle for coordination, and the use of 'stress-tests' for budget approvals to ensure climate resilience is built into sustainable development.

The document asserts that market-based mechanisms are insufficient on their own to finance necessary emission reductions and must be supported by public finance to build capacity and governance. It argues that international credits should not compete with domestic mitigation efforts in developing countries, nor should they replace domestic action in developed countries. Finally, it suggests that any new framework should be informed by the experiences of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), Joint Implementation (JI), and the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS).

The research examines historical private capital flows—including foreign direct investment (FDI), portfolio equity, and bank lending—to assess their suitability for climate adaptation in developing countries. It finds that private finance is heavily concentrated in a few emerging economies and resource-extraction sectors, often bypassing the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and critical adaptation sectors like water and small-scale agriculture. The author argues that the unpredictability and sectoral bias of private investment pose significant challenges for the delivery of the USD 100 billion annual climate finance pledge, suggesting that public finance must fill these gaps rather than simply attempting to leverage private flows that naturally avoid the most vulnerable areas.

The report estimates that at least USD 97 billion per annum in climate finance was provided in 2009/2010, with private finance (USD 55 billion) significantly outweighing public finance (at least USD 21 billion). The vast majority of these funds (USD 93 billion) are directed toward mitigation, while adaptation receives only USD 4.4 billion. The analysis highlights a critical lack of standardized definitions and a significant gap in data regarding the effectiveness of these financial flows.

The document investigates whether public finance-facilitating tools can act as a 'game-changer' for low-carbon investment in developing countries. It identifies that while these tools can address various risks and increase liquidity, they are not a substitute for ambitious climate policies and direct payment mechanisms. Key challenges include a lack of 'deal flow' in less advanced economies, the risk of crowding out private capital, and the inherent risk-aversion of public finance institutions that must maintain high credit ratings.

The document examines the governance of climate finance across three developing regions, arguing that funding is heavily skewed toward mitigation over adaptation and private over public sources. It highlights that this imbalance often ignores the urgent needs of the most vulnerable populations and the preference of developing nations for public finance to address historical climate debt. Additionally, it critiques the role of regional development banks, noting conflicts of interest where banks fund both fossil-fuel and renewable energy projects while prioritizing loans over grants.

The policy brief highlights a systemic gap where governments provide billions in subsidies but under-invest in the monitoring required to prevent fraud and corruption. It notes that the actual scale of these issues is obscured by government reluctance to publicize failures. The brief advocates for using high-profile fraud cases as opportunities to reform poorly designed subsidy programs and discusses the challenges and benefits of establishing a global estimate of the financial impact of such corruption.

The document outlines how the AGF's recommendations for climate finance apply to Asia, noting that while China and India have successfully used carbon markets to attract private finance, other Asian nations will rely more on public revenue. It highlights the potential for 'transformational investments' combining public and private flows, the need for grants and concessional loans for highly vulnerable countries like Bangladesh, and concerns regarding international transport revenue and trade costs. Finally, it suggests that the US$100 billion annual target may be insufficient to meet Asia's adaptation needs.

The workshop identified four primary challenges in climate finance: a limited understanding of effectiveness, the need to track domestic and South-South flows alongside North-South flows, the difficulty of measuring and linking policy to the dominant private finance sources, and a general lack of comprehensive information. Participants emphasized the need for common methodologies to calculate disbursement data, the development of risk-sharing mechanisms to unlock private capital, and the creation of an integrated system for storing financial data. These findings served as the basis for the Climate Policy Initiative's (CPI) Climate Finance Project, which aims to provide analysis and a productivity evaluation framework for policymakers.

The document argues that transparency and high-quality data are essential for governments to prioritize and monitor the reform of fossil-fuel subsidies, which otherwise undermine climate and energy security goals. It proposes a two-track strategy involving both domestic improvements in accounting and the creation of an international data-management regime.

The report argues that fossil-fuel subsidies lock economies into carbon reliance, exacerbate greenhouse gas emissions, and divert funds from social services. It concludes that while reform is politically difficult due to interest group influence and administrative path dependence, it would lead to aggregate GDP increases and significant CO2 reductions. The document emphasizes that transparency—both through improved national accounting and a new international reporting regime—is essential for successful de-subsidization. It provides a framework for reform based on research, clear objectives, coherent policy design, and the prevention of backsliding through independent pricing bodies.

The paper argues that Botswana's success is not due to minerals alone but to a combination of professional public institutions, disciplined leadership, and the integration of traditional Tswana democratic values with modern governance. It highlights the role of the Ministry of Finance and Development Planning in linking revenue to specific projects and the strategic partnership with De Beers. However, the authors warn that this 'miracle' is threatened by high income inequality, over-reliance on diamond exports, a high HIV/Aids prevalence, and an excessively powerful executive presidency.