Search Climate Insights Directory

The document details the progress of the GCF accreditation process, reporting that 88 entities have been decided for accreditation, with 52 having fully completed the process via effective Accreditation Master Agreements (AMAs). It outlines the pipeline of 112 submitted applications and the support provided to direct access entities, including USD 11.68 million committed through 61 grants. The report specifically recommends the accreditation of seven new applicants (APL090 to APL096) with varying fiduciary and environmental and social (E&S) risk categories, most of whom are subject to specific conditions to close institutional gaps. Additionally, it tracks the status of existing accredited entities in addressing their accreditation conditions and proposes extending the prioritization of entities to the end of the twenty-fifth Board meeting.

The report outlines a roadmap for 24 national and regional development banks to transition from incremental climate finance to full Paris alignment. It proposes a three-dimensional framework focusing on a comprehensive scope of action, a long-term time horizon, and an ambitious scale of contribution. Recommendations are divided into country-level support for governments, strategic-level institutional leadership, and operational-level investment criteria and project development.

The report examines how cell captive insurance—a model where a licensed insurer creates ring-fenced cells for other organisations—can be used in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) to bridge gaps in specialised risk cover, drive retail innovation, and facilitate market participation. It identifies four primary use cases: specialised risk management, retail innovation, insurance market participation, and the development of offshore financial centres. The document details three main regulatory models—Protected Cell Companies (PCC), Incorporated Cell Companies (ICC), and Shareholder Participation Agreements (SPA)—and provides a decision tree for regulators to determine the appropriate structure based on their policy objectives, risk transfer needs, and requirements for asset separation, capital, and governance.

As of 30 June 2019, the Green Climate Fund (GCF) reports that portfolio concentration and liquidity remain within approved risk tolerance levels, with no non-performing loans for eight consecutive quarters. The portfolio consists of 101 approved funding proposals totaling USD 4.97 billion equivalent, with a distribution of 44% mitigation, 22% adaptation, and 13% cross-cutting projects. Geographically, Africa holds the largest share of approved funding at 43%, followed by Asia-Pacific at 31%. The fund maintains a foreign exchange commitment risk buffer of USD 46.6 million equivalent.

ClientEarth argues that the PSI Guide must explicitly distinguish between reputational ESG risks and financially material risks, such as climate change, to ensure insurers do not adopt approaches less stringent than those required by law. The response highlights that regulators like the UK Prudential Regulatory Authority (PRA) and EIOPA already integrate sustainability risks into risk management frameworks, making board-level oversight and specific responsibility allocation a legal necessity rather than an optional best practice. ClientEarth further suggests that certain high-polluting sectors, such as coal and tar sands, should be managed through straightforward exclusion policies rather than ESG frameworks. Additionally, the document critiques the PSI's risk heat maps for underestimating the climate risks associated with agriculture, livestock, and real estate.

ClientEarth argues that Lloyd's of London's current risk management is inadequate regarding coal assets, noting that its Coal Exclusion Policy only covers 2.5% of assets. The letter highlights the Carmichael coalmine as a high-risk project due to potential stranded asset risks and a lack of a 'social licence to operate', which could lead to significant insurance claims. ClientEarth asserts that continuing to enable coal undermines the insurance business model by fueling climate-driven natural catastrophes, and calls for public disclosure of risk management criteria.

This report by the Climate Policy Initiative examines the current state of climate adaptation finance, identifying significant funding gaps and barriers to investment, particularly in developing countries. It proposes a framework for increasing investment by boosting demand for adaptation services, supporting suppliers, and de-risking investments, while urging developing country governments to improve risk assessment and tracking.

The report argues that Brazil can align economic growth with natural resource protection by intensifying production on underutilized pasture lands. It identifies three main directives for reform: improving risk management tools (insurance and derivatives), aligning rural credit with the 2012 Forest Code to incentivize environmental conservation, and simplifying the complex, public-sector-dominated credit system to increase private bank participation and predictability.

Absa Bank Limited states that its risk assessment processes regarding the funding of the proposed Thabametsi and Khanyisa coal-fired power plants are still underway and will determine the bank's final position on the projects.

The Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) review of the GCF's Results Management Framework (RMF) finds that while the RMF helps classify projects into adaptation and mitigation themes, it suffers from critical flaws in its logical models and a lack of measurement protocols. The review reveals that 39% of approved projects lack impact indicators for at least one targeted result area, representing a reporting gap for USD 1.3 billion in investments. Key deficiencies include the absence of baseline data in 50% of projects and insufficient M&E budgeting in 70% of cases. The IEU recommends developing theories of change, creating a technical guide to consolidate scattered Board decisions, and strengthening the role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) beyond the granting of non-objection letters. The report also notes that gender-related tools are not yet fully integrated into the RMF.

ClientEarth criticizes the European Commission's claim that the existing EU regulatory framework for endocrine disruptors (EDCs) is 'comprehensive', highlighting significant gaps in the identification and prevention of adverse effects. The organization argues that EDCs should be established as an independent regulatory class, similar to carcinogenic, mutagenic, and reprotoxic (CMR) substances, to ensure systematic risk management across all sectors, including toys and cosmetics. ClientEarth further notes that the current substance-by-substance approach leads to problematic substitutions, such as replacing Bisphenol A with Bisphenol S, and calls for a grouping approach to regulation.

The GCF Non-financial Risk Policy defines a framework to manage operational, staffing, IT, disaster, and reputation risks. It implements a three-level responsibility model: First Level (risk owners), Second Level (independent control functions, primarily the ORMC), and Third Level (assurance via the Office of the Internal Auditor). The policy mandates quarterly risk dashboard reporting to senior management and the Board, annual risk control self-assessments for high-priority processes, and a business continuity management approach led by the Office of the Executive Director during disruptions.

The IEU review finds that while the GCF's Results Management Framework (RMF) helps stakeholders focus on adaptation and mitigation, it suffers from critical flaws in its logic models, a lack of measurement protocols for indicators, and insufficient integration with national monitoring systems. A portfolio analysis of 74 approved projects revealed that 39% are missing at least one impact indicator for their targeted result areas, and 50% have no plans for baseline data collection. The review recommends that the GCF Secretariat develop theories of change for key thematic areas, establish clear measurement protocols, and better define the role of National Designated Authorities (NDAs) throughout the project cycle.

The GCF Board's 18th meeting in Cairo focused on operationalizing the fund's implementation phase. Key outcomes include the approval of multiple funding proposals across various regions, the accreditation of five new entities, and the adoption of a Simplified Approval Process (SAP) pilot for small-scale activities. The Board also approved a new Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism Policy and a revised administrative budget and staffing target of 250 employees for 2018. However, consensus was not reached on a risk management framework or the selection process for a Permanent Trustee.

The Risk, Remittances and Integrity (RRI) programme is a five-year partnership between FSD Africa and Cenfri aimed at strengthening the financial sector in sub-Saharan Africa. The programme operates through three primary streams: Risk Management, which focuses on developing inclusive insurance markets; Remittances, which seeks to reduce costs and increase the flow of funds for resilience and investment; and Integrity, which addresses illicit financial flows and the impact of AML/CFT regulations on financial inclusion.

The GCF Board's seventeenth meeting focused on enhancing the fund's operational framework, specifically through the adoption of a comprehensive Risk Management Framework (RMF) and an Operational Framework for complementarity and coherence with other climate funds. The Board accredited six new entities, including CDG Capital, IDCOL, SIDBI, MCT, BTMU, and JICA, while introducing new guidelines for country ownership. Significant discussions were held on the pilot programme for REDD-plus results-based payments and the analysis of barriers to private sector engagement. The Board also approved the 2016 audited financial statements and established performance criteria for the Executive Director.

The document details the outcomes of a two-day assembly in May 2017 aimed at advancing Colombia's National Adaptation Plan for Climate Change (PNACC). It identifies critical gaps in institutional continuity, financing, and the integration of local community knowledge, while highlighting the role of regional nodes and international cooperation in bridging these gaps. The report emphasizes the need to transition from a top-down approach to a transversal network that fosters bidirectional communication between national entities and territorial actors.

The GCF Secretariat reports progress across several operational areas, including the approval of USD 1.5 billion in funding and the signing of 19 accreditation master agreements. Key activities include the development of a gender and climate change training manual with UN Women, the processing of Project Preparation Facility (PPF) requests, and efforts to secure privileges and immunities (P&Is) through bilateral and multilateral agreements. The report also notes the recruitment of risk and monitoring specialists and ongoing engagement with UNFCCC thematic bodies.

The report argues that insurance promotes growth through two primary channels: risk mitigation (protecting assets and facilitating credit) and intermediation (mobilizing long-term capital for investment). It identifies a four-stage evolution path for insurance markets, noting that most sub-Saharan African countries are currently in the first two stages, where asset insurance dominates and the intermediation-for-growth role is not yet active. The transition to the third stage—retail expansion—is hindered by low income levels, high economic informalisation, and a shortage of actuarial skills. The authors recommend stage-appropriate interventions, such as developing contractual savings solutions for the informal sector and improving domestic professional capacity, to unlock the sector's potential to support capital markets and inclusive growth.

The policy brief examines the role of micro-insurance in mitigating the economic impacts of climate change on vulnerable coastal sectors in SIDS, noting that traditional coping mechanisms like household savings are insufficient.